252
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
252 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
44132 readers
685 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hit the ground running deploying...pretty much anything.
Was running game servers on my Windows PC through Docker and they were super easy to set up. I got a new PC and decided to repurpose my old computer into an Ubuntu server to get some experience with Unix. I have only been more frustrated once in my entire life. Sure, once things are set up on Linux they are really powerful, but the barrier to entry is so absurdly high and running anything "out of the box" is literally impossible by design.
That's very weird as with docker on windows you technically run your containers in a linux vm, and besides that, in my experience windows is not nearly stable enough to be useful for running services.
All while I have been deploying selfhosted services for myself without problems on Linux for years. My only problem has been the constantly overloaded system, but that's no surprise when you run heavy services on the 10+ year old portable hard drive system disk. Windows would only perform worse in that environment.
Yeah.... this feels like a very bad example. I am honestly curious as to specifics here, because Ubuntu setup is pretty dead simple with the graphical installer. And like you said docker is native linux.
Saying running anything out of the box is "impossible by design" on Ubuntu is objectively wrong frankly. Maybe you could argue they haven't succeeded in their goal of being super out of the box friendly, not sure I'd agree but at least you'd have leg to stand on.
Erm I'll politely disagree there. Linux is just built for it. No extra layer like Windows. Docker and Linux are besties
Don't get me wrong - I know that they are, and I know that Linux is superior for running docker containers. The thing is that Windows handles all the permissions for you. An average Joe can get a docker container up and running on Windows. You need significantly more Linux-specific knowledge to get a container running on Linux, and the advice given by the community is often cryptic for beginners.
Then try podman! The podman desktop application by redhat is probably one of the nicest interfaces for container orchestration i’ve seen in a while, if not a little bare. Podman is rootless by design and there’s basically no configuration needed (for non-commercial purposes, anyway) besides loading up the gui, downloading your images, and spinning up whatever software you need.
I feel your pain, ugh. Setting up certain types of software can be a pain in the ass because there's almost always dependencies that need to be set up first; in addition, it's not always clear what you're supposed to install or how to do it the right way. A lot of Linux-related documentation out there isn't geared towards beginners and leaves out a lot of important explanatory and contextual information, which just makes it more frustrating. Unnecessarily, in my opinion.
However, I gotta mention that Ubuntu - though widely used - is sorta notorious for being user unfriendly and isn't always the most appropriate choice for a beginner Linux user. If anyone reading this is thinking about trying Linux for the first time, I would consider Linux Mint. It's a Linux distro that is actually based on Ubuntu (which is based on Debian), but it works "out of the box" better than most and should be a positive experience for most users. It's pretty solid.
In my experience, most package managers should set up dependencies by themselves! Though, I do agree with the lack of explanation of documentation.
I use arch by the way, but what’s your opinion of other “user-friendly” distros like Manjaro or Garuda?
Truth!
Ubuntu is notoriously user unfriendly???
That's honestly super confusing to me. Not just experientially from using Ubuntu but also just I've never heard it described that way. It's definitely near the top of list of out-of-box friendly distros.
Graphical installer. Full App Store UI. Desktop versions that come with lots of common software. It's hard to get much simpler than that.
Truly, if anything, I would consider desktop Ubuntu to be somewhat power user unfriendly.
Ubuntu I would say is a terrible desktop OS full stop, and all the derivatives also, as well as Debian. They are fine for a server where someone wants stability of package change above all else, but as a desktop we should NOT be pushing new users to these distros full of outdated software when easier to use rolling distros are available, where adding anything new isn't adding a repo that is almost certainly going to break things on an OS update.
You realise Debian is the base distribution?
Ubuntu takes 6 monthly cuts from Debian Testing, adds some in house stuff puts them through QA and performs a release.
Linux Mint is produced by Cinnamon devs, similar to KDE Neon. They take the last Ubuntu LTS, remove many of the in house additions, add the latest Cinnamon desktop and release.
Cinnamon got upstreamed into Debian to make the process easier.
Yes, that is why I included Debian and the Ubuntu spins (Mint/etc.). They all run outdated software, and I don't think in 2024 they are a suitable desktop OS for someone new coming to Linux. They were fine back in the day when things were not moving as fast, but now, well running one of them is a disservice to the user IMHO. Unless your only using your system to make spreadsheets using an outdated version of LibreOffice and don't mind that your 6+ months behind the rest of the world.
I think they certainly have a place in the server world, but as a desktop new users should be looking at the EndeavourOS, CachyOS, Fedora, Nobara, Ultramarine, or even SUSE Tumbleweed.
Do you not know that mint is Ubuntu based?
The person is correct in this isn't a Linux problem, but relates to your experience.
Windows worked by giving everyone full permissions and opening every port. While Microsoft has tried to roll that back the administration effort goes into restricting access.
Linux works on the opposite principle, you have to learn how to grant access to users and expose ports.
You would have to learn this mental switch no matter what Linux task your trying to learn
Dockers guide to setting up a headless docker is copy/paste. You can install Docker Desktop on Linux and the effort is identical to windows. The only missing step is
sudo usermod -aG docker $userTo ensure your user can access the docker host as a local user.
What happened the one time you were more frustrated?
Playing Final Fantasy XIII. That legitimately made me cry with how frustrating that game was to play.
Ah ok. Never played it, probably won't bother! :-)
That's a letter U problem. I can administer Linux a bajillion times easier than windows, because I do it for a living, and haven't touched MS since Server 2010. Also Docker in Windows is LOL. You're leveraging Linux to shit on Linux. Lets do that all in IIS and see how you feel.
Pointing out that you find it easy because you do it for a living isn't a very good counter to their point - most people do other things besides Linux for a living
He's.... not wrong though. I mean look, deploying things is somewhat inherently the task of professionals and enthusiasts. To say that deploying things on Windows is easier than Linux is going to be really really hard to defend. Not to even mention the docker layer.
I can run a Linux docker container on Windows and it just works. When I run it on Linux it is constant permission and access issues.
I guess I can’t deny your experience is your experience, but again if you’re running Docker on Windows, Windows is just running a Linux VM or WSL to do this. And I can assure you that any serious person running containerized workloads for production type deployments will be doing this on a Linux host.
Docker has pretty good docs for installation on the major Linux distros, so without more info I can’t really say much else.
Permissions on Windows are notoriously insecure. By default, literally everything is executable in Windows. Docker is very much the same (insecure by default; in Windows).
Your permissions problems in Linux are a feature, not a bug. You just didn't understand what you were doing when you tried to get it set up. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about permissions errors. That's the very definition of complaining about your own ignorance.
I get that the point of this thread is something along the lines of, "running Docker images is a breeze" but I think a more relevant point would be, "Docker images run better" (in Linux).
Docker images will run much faster and more efficiently in Linux. It's just how it was meant to work. WSL doesn't work like WINE: it's actually an emulator and will always be slower than native Linux.
As you said, I am perfectly aware that in an ideal world security would be on lockdown. How it behaves on Linux is how it SHOULD work. That doesn't change the main point that you can't hit the ground running with Docker containers in Linux.
This is what’s holding the community back. The “get good” advice isn’t really advice and keeps Linux from hitting the mainstream. I get it you’re amazing at Linux but the rest of us shouldn’t have to go back to school to get a computer degree and become a Linux professional in order to use it. This is the same person that replies to questions about Linux with “why do you need the GUI just use the command line instead or it’s dead simple just type: followed by like 80 lines of code that people can’t make heads or tails of because they’re novices. Man I get that you want to flex but it’s a pretty strange flex.
OTOH, many people can't make heads from tails regarding windows, icons or buttons, and they don't get the contextual clues that the GUI gives for any operating system. They don't see them, and if they do they're unable to make the automatic inferences most of us long time users obtain from them. They act as people who are blind from birth and suddenly see, who have problems to understand tridimensionality; the GUI is not in their mind model of how to work with computers, and they have a lot of difficulty interacting with it.
So that makes the “get good” advice valid? What are you talking about bro? I didn’t say Linux isn’t valid. I think you must have replied to me specifically on accident because your response isn’t germane to my reply. Or if you feel it is please explain. Make sure you use as many polysyllabic words as possible. I think you wrote up one of the Linux documents I’m to understand.
Or maybe I’ll just say: cool story bro.
No, they're untrainable. It's literally impossible for them to get any good. At all.
Perfect. Good solution. Linux only for the elite.
FTFY
You have completely lost the plot. This topic is about Windows and Linux ease of use. I don’t know what you’re talking about anymore.
Is your point meant to be that these people who already have trouble learning GUIs would somehow have an easier time intuiting command line?
If that's correct, that's an absolutely BS argument
No, my point is that they're lost causes and they're untrainable.
Ah... I still don't get how that's meant to refute the previous person's point that elitism and the "git gud" attitude around Linux contributes to it's inability to become mainstream.
If anything your reply only reinforces their point, because you seem to be suggesting we throw anybody who struggles to learn it to the curb.
What?
IIS is not the same as Docker. Sounds to me you are shitting on IIS for the sake of trying to prove a point I wasn't trying to make.
This goes into my next point. Linux users are toxic as hell. They are elitist snobs who shit on newbies because they have years of experience.
This is a very dangerous, and unfortunately widespread, generalization. The shitty ones are the loudest ones, and I’m sorry that most of your experience with linux users has been with them. I promise, much of the community are kindhearted individuals who simply use linux because of its ideals, or because they’re developers, or privacy enthusiasts, or those who bought a steam deck and think the lack of windows is pretty neat.
This. This is truth!
I used Windows from 95 onward. Docker on Windows is second class compared to running on Linux.
That being said, I don't think it's that people cannot learn to use something like Ubuntu, it's that if they don't need to, they won't.
Good enough, is fine for the vast majority of folks. And I think Windows 11 proves that.
Like I had to learn OSX for my work computer, which I ended up loving. But that took me a week or so to get the hang of.
Yeah, I started working for a company with a lot of Windows servers two years ago and I still can't wrap my brain around them. I've been a Linux sysadmin/sysarchitect for 20+ years and I'm still completely lost how to get Windows to much of anything. I usually don't have to do much on those servers, but when I do its StackOverflow that's really administering them. It's because I lack foundational knowledge about windows and also because I'm fine not having that knowledge.
Hold on, did you just low-key state that running Linux docker containers on Windows ends up giving you the best of both worlds? Run Linux server software in docker containers, run client software natively on Windows?