Para_lyzed

I’m not really sure what it is you’re asking for here. As another commenter said, ps outputs a list of newline separated entries (using \n, the standard LF character). I even ran some sanity checks to make sure it wasn’t using \r\n (CR LF) with the following:

$ ps aux | grep $USER | tr -cd "\n" | wc -m
14
$ ps aux | grep $USER | tr -cd "\r" | wc -m
0

The output of ps aux | grep $USER is consistent with the formatting of ps aux. I also found that ps aux | grep $USER was consistent with ps -fp $(pgrep -d, -u $USER) except that ps -fp $(pgrep -d, -u $USER) shows the header (UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME CMD), does not show the processes related to the command (entries of ps aux and grep --color=auto $USER), and does not show grep’s keyword matching by highlighting all matches within a line. It is otherwise completely identical.

Can you provide the output that you are getting that is unsatisfactory to you? I don’t think I can otherwise understand where the issue is.

I am also experiencing this issue on Fedora 40 with the Negativo drivers, and I believe this is a flatpak issue. Here is a GitHub issue detailing the problem. Allegedly it has been fixed, but I have updated to the latest commit and am still having the same issue, so I am unsure what to do (I’ve spent a number of hours trying to troubleshoot this). You might have luck just running a flatpak update, as that is supposed to solve this issue (YMMV though, it didn’t fix it for me).

The partition manager should be KDE Partition Manager on the KDE Bazzite, and Disks on the GNOME Bazzite (I don’t think GParted is installed by default)

The flowchart is as follows:

LibreOffice or OnlyOffice for desktop apps (no, they are not Microsoft apps, but yes they use Microsoft formats and can edit and save Microsoft documents/spreadsheets/etc). OnlyOffice is the closest of the two to the Windows experience.

If you really aren’t open to using alternative software (which is strange given that you’re using Linux), then the web apps exist. I’ve heard they’re really close to the actual desktop suite, though I don’t have any interest in ever using them as we have very good free and open source alternatives available (see above).

If the web apps don’t cut it for you, then you can run the official apps in a VM, or maybe through WINE. Here’s the WINE DB page for Microsoft Office, which lists various Office versions and their level of compatibility through WINE.

Copilot will likely not be possible to secure on Linux in a standalone desktop app (unless someone somewhere hacked something together through Electron to use a web version). Another user said that Copilot is available inside Microsoft Edge, so I suppose you could install that, though I’d highly discourage that. Reliance on LLMs is quite frankly a plague to society, and often feeds incorrect, biased, or purely fabricated responses, as LLMs merely attempt to predict what word is most likely to occur next based on a set of training data, none of which was vetted for accuracy, racism, zionism, sexism, etc. LLMs like copilot do not have any form of intelligence, and do not understand what they are saying. I highly recommend you just use a search engine in your browser, because it’ll feed you the same info all the LLMs were trained on anyway.

OneDrive recently received native support in GNOME, so I think you should be able to access it in your settings under accounts/connected services (whatever GNOME calls it nowadays)? I’ve never tried to use it, so other people will know better than I will there, but it should be possible to use.

LocalSend looks great, but I don’t think it captures OP’s intention. It would require someone else to download the app if they wanted to receive a file, but OP is asking for something that uses the already existing Airdrop/Quick Share so that they could send a file to someone without them having to install anything. I’ve had similar wants, as when I’ve wanted to share something with someone in public that I don’t really know, I’ve just had to upload it to send.vis.ee, but that can be quite slow and inefficient. Something leveraging both Airdrop/Quick Share (that doesn’t require you to be connected to the same WiFi network like LocalSend) would be ideal, as those are features included by default on stock iOS and Android (no install required). For instance, there was something similar called WarpShare that allowed you to share something via Airdrop from an Android device to an Apple device (but only in that direction), but its development has stalled and it isn’t capable of using Quick Share for Android devices.

I’ve seen a few people in this sub asking for a desktop client, so it seems like something (some) people would be interested in. Maybe reach out to the Thunder devs and see if you can become an official flatpak maintainer (assuming you have flatpak experience and know what you’re getting into) if they don’t have time to maintain it themselves. You could also maybe get the “desktop” flag added to Thunder in this list if you were to do that, which would help people find it.

Just to throw another option out there, partclone will only copy data that is being used in a partition, without all the empty space. I don’t believe it helps for encrypted partitions, but you could always just image the unencrypted filesystem with partclone to a drive with full disk encryption to work around that (and still prevent storing data unencrypted). Saves a lot of space.

Also, in the context of backups, I often prefer to use btrfs send to create and update backups through snapshots quickly and efficiently instead of imaging (though of course that requires you to use btrfs). Full imaging is pretty inefficient for my needs, and takes a lot of time.

Did you check the MD5sum? If you did (and it actually matches), try using a different media creator. You can use something like Rufus or Fedora Media Writer (yes, you can install non-Fedora ISOs with it, the only extra feature it has is that it will automatically download Fedora ISOs you want). If other media creation tools don’t work, try a different flash drive, as that’s the next most likely issue.

Then it may be a Ventoy thing, or even just a bad flash drive

It’s fairly common for apps to save login information in Kwallet on your keyring, so anytime those credentials on your keyring need to be accessed (like automatically logging into Discord when it starts), you will need to unlock your keyring. It’s generally easier to just log into your profile with a password, as Kwallet won’t need to get you to unlock it separately.

The only reason that the Fedora Project exists is for community development. There is simply nothing Red Hat could ever stand to gain from changing that model, as they’d lose the entirety of what they are paying for by sponsoring the project. In order to do anything, they’d first need to dissolve FESCo, which would make HUGE waves across the internet. You and anyone else in the community would see news and posts about it immediately. Once that happens, the project dies. Community members are not going to contribute to a project that betrays their trust, after all. So in trying to change anything, the only thing Red Hat would be doing is moving a project that they are paying a relatively small amount of money for (relative to the number of contributors) from community developed to Red Hat developed. That means that they have to personally invest money into maintaining and employing contributors themselves, completely defeating the point of Fedora existing in the first place. If they wanted to privately fund development, why wouldn’t they instead do it in RHEL, or CentOS Stream?

Let’s analyze Red Hat’s current gains from Fedora one by one:

1. Fedora is a place for Red Hat to test new features before they move to RHEL.

This requires an active userbase, and by privatizing or taking over the project, that userbase would rapidly diminish. Red Hat cannot increase this benefit by any means, other than by leaving the project be as is.

2. Fedora is community developed, so Red Hat can benefit from commits made by the community (people they don’t pay).

Privatizing or taking over the Fedora Project would immediately end that community development. There’s nothing in this respect that Red Hat could possibly intend to gain from such an action.

3. Red Hat’s image appears better by sponsoring a community developed project.

It should go without saying that their image would only be damaged if they tried to modify their current relationship.

These are the things that Red Hat is paying for by sponsoring the Fedora Project. A hostile takeover would have exactly zero potential gain and very high potential losses in each of these categories; thus it doesn’t make sense in the slightest.

Now let’s analyze some new potential gains that Red Hat could get by a hostile takeover:

1. Monetizing Fedora.

This is Linux we’re talking about, attempting to sell a consumer Linux distro for money will not fly, and no one will buy it. After all, even when enterprises by RHEL licenses, they aren’t paying for the software itself. What they’re really paying for is the support package and direct hotline to Red Hat for any technical difficulties. Red Hat makes its money by offering support services, something that does not have any realistic market for the general populace, especially considering the userbase we’re talking about are Linux users.

2. That’s really it.

There’s just nothing else Red Hat would even stand to gain from any hostile takeover. The only potential motive is money, and Fedora is not a product that will ever generate them revenue. Consumers don’t want to purchase licenses, and enterprises don’t want consumer desktop distros with 6 month release cycles.

Red Hat funds Fedora because it is of great benefit to them to keep it alive, and continue its development by the community. Changing their relationship with the Fedora Project would not only lose the exact benefits they are receiving, but also cost them money, as they will no longer have thousands of community members volunteering their work, and they would have to hire contributors to fill that gap. Additionally, why even bother speculating? It isn’t difficult to move distros nowadays, so if anything ever were to change, you can jump ship on any day of the week to another distro. We seem to live in a world where logic is challenged by a thousand “but what if?” statements that have no basis in reality. It’s quite a pointless endeavor, honestly. What if the distro you choose gets bought out by Google, or Microsoft? What if the distro you choose is secretly funding antisemitism with donation money? What if the distro you choose suddenly dies? These are all absurd questions to speculate on, all to no real end. They each have the very simple solution of “just install a different distro if that happens”. But what if a company tries to exploit a distro for money? There’s no point in even speculating that because there isn’t even any money to be made from consumer desktop distros. The money to be made from Linux is not in the consumer desktop platform, it is in the realm of businesses (enterprise software, embedded systems). There are far too many free options out there owned by nonprofits to ever consider marketing a consumer Linux distro like that. Even with stuff like Ubuntu Pro, you aren’t paying for a license to the distro; you’re paying for extra support.

Why are we treating Red Hat like the most evil company in the world, anyway? As far as tech companies go, they’re pretty damn ethically sound. They’re not nearly as bad as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, or any number of other tech companies that release proprietary software with no access to source code, massively violate their users privacy, exploit consumers in harmful ad campaigns, etc. Google, one of the most unethical companies in the world owns Android, but we still have AOSP, which is the foundation for custom ROMs like GrapheneOS and LineageOS. If they believed that trying to shut down AOSP would make them money, they would have tried it years ago. Of course, doing so wouldn’t even be legal, as it would be violating GPL.

I’m just not seeing what exactly you’re imagining Red Hat could take away from Fedora for their own gain. Nothing they could do that would have a negative effect on users would result in a gain for Red Hat, as they’d be losing everything they gain from the Fedora Project. In order to make any changes to the development of Fedora, they either have to pay developers to make those changes, or convince community members to do it for them (which is not going to happen if these changes are negative), and that’s assuming that they manage to dissolve FESCo to get these malicious changes approved.

You don’t want to rely on a project that’s funded by corporations? Where do you think the funding for the Linux Foundation comes from? Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM fund the Linux Foundation, so any OS that uses the Linux kernel will be financially dependent on corporations. That’s something you’re never going to be able to avoid.

I don’t understand why this has been blown so far out of proportion. What’s the point in excluding a very good distro that suits your needs perfectly over a fear that some day, somehow, in the indeterminate future, that there would be some new financial incentive created out of thin air that would cause Red Hat to try to take over Fedora? What guarantees that same situation or one similar wouldn’t happen to any other distro you could choose? And to that end, why would Red Hat take over Fedora instead of creating a new fork that they could sell so they can still get all those benefits of community development? I don’t see how any financial incentive created by Fedora wouldn’t be possible to gain downstream.

There’s a question that I feel I don’t adequately answer in my previous comments, but I feel as if I should address.

Does Red Hat implement their own features in Fedora, and what does that mean for the community?

The short answer is yes, there are Red Hat developers who do work on Fedora. Just as Canonical developers contribute to Debian, Red Hat contributes to Fedora. There is a very important distinction between the development of Fedora and RHEL though, and it’s the same reason no one is up in arms about Canonical contributing to Debian. The changes that Red Hat makes to Fedora still have to be approved by FESCo, so they still have to represent the interests of the community. Red Hat can feel free to pay as much as they like into the development of features, but if those features would contradict the values of the Fedora Project or go against the wishes of the community, they wouldn’t be approved in the first place. Red Hat sees Fedora as a very valuable resource that they can use to test features before they arrive in RHEL. Unlike Canonical, however, they don’t push proprietary solutions, tracking, or pro subscriptions into a consumer desktop platform. Those changes would not be representative of the wants of the community, and would not be approved by FESCo (hence the benefit of a community elected board).

There’s a related follow-up, as well:

Are there Red Hat developers in FESCo? What does that mean for Fedora?

Yes, there are a few Red Hat developers in FESCo, you can view their bios on the Fedora Project website. They were not placed there by Red Hat, however. These are still people that were elected by the community, who would not be there unless users (and other developers) trusted them to make decisions in the interest of the community. You can nominate and vote in the elections as part of the community if you wish.

The biggest factor that I often see glossed over (and perhaps the most important reason Fedora has independence) is that Red Hat doesn’t have any reason to even attempt to corrupt it. Fedora users are not an audience they stand to make money from, and if Red Hat believed there was money to be had in the consumer desktop platform, they would already be selling a product. There is mutual benefit between Red Hat and the Fedora Project, and that gets passed onto the community. Red Hat benefits from the contributions of the community, while simultaneously being able to test new features in an audience that they aren’t interested in selling to, and the Fedora Project gets money and active development back from Red Hat as a result.

Now I’d also like to clarify, because I could understand confusion as to what I meant when I said Red Hat doesn’t control the Fedora Project. Red Hat is allowed to make contributions to Fedora, so long as they meet the same approval criteria as any other merge request from any other person/entity. Red Hat, however, is not able to control how money is spent, or where the priorities of community developers are focused (the direction of the project). So they are free to make contributions to Fedora that benefit everyone (so long as their changes are approved), but not free to test RHEL specific features that don’t have a place in Fedora, for example. In fact, since Red Hat wants to keep their source code away from anyone that doesn’t pay them a subscription, they actually have a vested interest in keeping those RHEL specific features separate from Fedora, as to not make them easily accessible to potential competitors. This is how they’re addressing the competition posed by Rocky/Alma/Oracle Linux.

Excluding Fedora because it’s “too close to RH” doesn’t make any sense at all. Fedora is not controlled by Red Hat, and Red Hat has no interest in a consumer desktop platform that they can’t sell. Fedora’s development is managed by FESCo, a community elected board that represents the interests of the community. They are kept intentionally separate from Red Hat’s development, and don’t tailor their development to Red Hat’s wants or needs (in fact they often do the opposite, as Fedora pushes for change in the way things are done, not stability, as can be seen by the exclusion of X11 from Fedora 40, for example). That stands in direct contradiction with RHEL’s goals. The features that are pushed by Red Hat developers would not be approved if they stood against the wants of the community, so anything Red Hat does contribute benefits the community as well. Red Hat’s entire business is in enterprise solutions, as their business model relies on them selling support for their software. There is exactly $0 in potential revenue from Red Hat trying to take over Fedora, it just doesn’t make sense. They can’t sell anything, and since Red Hat doesn’t employ all of the thousands of active contributors, such a takeover would simply result in a new fork. In fact, it would be against their interests, as Red Hat actively benefits from the developments of the community. Taking over control of the project would lose them all of the constant volunteer work put in by the community, which costs far less for them to sponsor than it would to employ a team a fraction of the size on salary. I’ve discussed this topic at length many times before, so I’ll just link to a few comments that explain the situation in more detail (including how the project is funded, managed, and separated from Red Hat).

https://lemmy.world/comment/7490965

https://lemmy.world/comment/7494803

The best fit for your criteria is Fedora. If you want uBlue spins, you’re still getting Fedora, just a more opinionated version. All of the major development of uBlue’s images comes from Fedora though, as they don’t maintain their own distro, they just repackage Fedora.

I explain a lot about release schedules for context, but you could skip to the last paragraph for the more direct answer to your question if you don’t care.

Fedora is on a semi-rolling release schedule, which only really means that its release schedule is in between that of Debian (fixed release schedule) and Arch (rolling release). A fixed release schedule freezes packages at the time of release and keeps major packages at the same version (plus bug/security updates) for the lifetime of the operating system (usually 2-4 years, LTS support can last longer for some distros). Major versions will have next fixed package versions, hence the need to perform a full system upgrade when going to a new version. Rolling release distros don’t fix packages at specific versions, and you’ll hear them referred to as “bleeding edge”, because they always get the newest updates quickly. Since they don’t fix package versions, there are no “major versions”, they just updates constantly (Arch is just Arch; there’s no Arch 10 or Arch 11). Semi-rolling release (Fedora) fixes some packages at a specific major version; usually large packages that could be troublesome to update to a new major version of because of dependencies (i.e. the DE, core system components, it depends on the distro). So when you perform an upgrade to a new major version of a semi-rolling release distro, you’re changing fewer packages, and there is (usually) less of a gap between versions than fixed releases among the packages that are fixed.

Fedora releases a new major version every 6 months, which they support for 1 year. Since I assume you’re coming from Windows, the new Fedora major versions are kind of like Windows feature upgrades. For the most part, much of the system is exactly the same, but there are some new features included and packages are updated to newer versions. Fedora doesn’t have the real fixed “major” releases like you see from Windows 10 to Windows 11, or any other version. Every major update is just a minor bump, all things considered. In fact, you can even skip a version when upgrading (say from Fedora 37 to Fedora 39 without updating to 38). The differences between major Fedora versions are generally minor enough that you can just press the button and let it do its thing. This is even easier for their atomic distros, but you’re likely just using Workstation. There are some cases where new major versions of packages will necessitate config updates (like upgrading to KDE Plasma 6 did with Fedora KDE users), but that’s generally rare. So yes, you can just hit the button and upgrade.

Fedora 40 removes X by default (you’d have to install it yourself), so this is going to be using Wayland. Seems like they’re using Ryzen integrated graphics, so at least it shouldn’t be related to any of the problems with Nvidia on Wayland.

It is certainly helpful in preventing issues caused by packages updating, as the whole base image should remain consistent (and you could always just roll back to the previous update from grub if necessary and revert a commit that broke your system). Since you were using Arch, I made a baseless assumption that you would want the ability to modify the root filesystem for configuration, but it was a baseless assumption, so if that is not the case, then atomic distros are great for users that don’t want to tweak tiny things in root directories like /usr. Granted, you can still overlay stuff if you wanted, so it’s not as if you couldn’t tweak stuff in immutable directories, it just requires a bit more work to do on atomic distros.

If what you’re looking for is a standard desktop KDE experience with a distro that is more resistant to breakage, I’d highly recommend Kinoite. It requires a bit of learning, but not a whole lot. For instance, the typical order of priority for installing packages is flatpak (mostly GUI stuff) > toolbox (terminal-based packages like neovim that aren’t already installed) > overlay with rpm-ostree (basically the equivalent of installing through your package manager). The fewer overlays you have, the better your protection from spontaneous breakage is. Of course, there are packages you will have to overlay depending on the situation (like the proprietary Nvidia drivers), but almost everything I need was available as either a flatpak or was practical to install in toolbox (basically a containerized mutable root that lets you install stuff with dnf instead of rpm-ostree). You can add aliases to your .bashrc so you don’t have to type “toolbox run <cmd>” every time, as well. Just be aware that packages installed in toolbox live in a container, and they aren’t intended to be able to break out of the container (so if you open a terminal in neovim, which is installed in a toolbox container, it will open a shell inside the container, not on your host). Containers can access your home directory and a variety of different directories in your system, so this often isn’t an issue, it’s just something to keep in mind (for instance, you can’t enable systemd services on your host from inside a terminal).

I’m also going to echo the sea of comments praising KDE support on Fedora. I just switched to Kinoite/Fedora Atomic KDE (for the Fedora 40 release) after using Fedora Workstation for about 5 years, and I’ve loved the experience. My only gripes have been from adjusting to an atomic distro, and have had nothing to do with KDE implementation. It seems that Fedora works very well with KDE, though I suppose I don’t have a whole lot of experience with other distros using KDE.

If you want to use KDE with a standard desktop experience, just use the KDE spin (the standard mutable version). If you’re interested in atomic distros (not trying to convert you, it’s very much a personal preference), then they have the atomic KDE spin as well. I don’t think you’ll be missing anything by using KDE on Fedora, and unless you wanted to experiment with GNOME, there’s no reason to really switch. Workstation and the KDE spin are both maintained at about the same level.

From your recommendation, I found a related project pandoras_pot that I am able to run in a Docker container, and seems to run more efficiently on my Pi home server. I now use it in my Caddyfile to redirect a number of fake subdomains and paths that are likely to be found by a malicious bot (of course all are excluded in my robots.txt for bots that actually respect it). Thanks for the recommendation!

TL;DR: Install Fedora from a liveUSB, as recommended in all the official documents and guides. If you have a secure boot issue, it’s likely because you installed from a VM. VMs run in BIOS mode by default, so the Fedora installer would install to your SSD without UEFI secure boot compatibility.

It seems like you may be overcomplicating things here. Why install to your SSD from a VM? Why not just make a liveUSB, boot into that, and then install to the SSD? That’s the recommended install method, and is far less error prone. The UEFI error you linked is resolved in Fedora 40 (which releases on the 23rd), but I highly doubt that was your issue, it seems like quite the long shot. Additionally, you do not need a swap partition (swapfiles have been standard for a long time), and honestly I’d just recommend you stick to the default partitioning scheme if you aren’t already comfortable in Linux. Less room for error that way.

If you believe secure boot to be an issue (like you seem to based on the issue you linked), then you should know that VMs all run in BIOS mode by default, not UEFI, so installing from a VM will not install with UEFI secure boot compatibility (hence why you should use the recommended method of booting from a liveUSB). This is why I don’t believe the issue you linked is related, as if secure boot were the problem, than the issue is the fact that you’re installing from a VM, since the VM will only know that it was booted in BIOS mode and do a BIOS mode install with no UEFI secure boot compatibility.

Tails is meant to boot from a USB drive, it is not meant to be installed on your system, so I’m not sure why you wanted to partition for it. I’m not even sure that it has an installer, because all the official documents and guides only talk about using a liveUSB (how it’s intended to be used).

I’m a bit confused why you chose to go this route to installing Fedora, as I’ve never seen a guide or any official documentation recommend a setup like this. Any guide you find online should tell you to use a liveUSB for installation, and that’s by far the easiest way. So I don’t quite understand the complaint about how “difficult” Linux is to install for the average user when you aren’t following any official way to install it. The “hoops” you jumped through all seem to be self-imposed. If you are actually experiencing a hardware-related issue, then the next step would be to try a different distro, but you need to try an official installation method before that, because that’s most likely your issue. Again, if secure boot is the issue, then you will experience the same thing from any other distro if you try to install it from a VM. That simply won’t work.

Fedora’s official documentation has you go to this page to download the Fedora Media Writer for Windows (an alternative to Rufus/Ventoy that will automatically download the Fedora ISO for you). You run that .exe in Windows with a USB flash drive plugged in, and it’s self-explanatory. Then you boot into the liveUSB you created (you may have to go into your BIOS and enable USB booting), and follow the installer steps. I suggest you wait until Fedora 40 releases on Tuesday, as it’s less than a week away. If by some long shot that issue you linked was in any way related, it is fixed in Fedora 40. No need to rush things. Just follow the official installation instructions, don’t go off on your own, and see if it works. If it doesn’t, you have a hardware issue and you can try to install something like Debian to see if it has the same hardware issues.

Yeah, I’ve always used fail2ban on the main server with my dockerized services. Works great, and requires very little work.