Hello community!

I come to you for advice. Using an m1 macbook air since 2020, I installed popos on my old 2013 macbook pro and I was quite happy with it but… I bought a steamdeck two weeks ago and exploring its desktop mode made me reconsider some choices. Using distros based on different systems, with different commands, desktop environment, etc. gets a little confusing for someone like me, who doesn’t use linux as my main machine. Do you have any advice for me? From what I understand, steamos is debian-based while popos is ubuntu-based: is that the biggest part of how a distribution works, ie commands, etc.? Good ui/ux is important for me so i should maybe use nitrux or deepin, that are debian-based, or is it a bad idea to choose a less common distro for a amateur like me?

Thanks in advance, I’m a bit lost.

  • @[email protected]
    16•1 year ago

    I realize this is a lost battle at this point, but I hate how the media hijacked “hacking” as a catch all for malicious purposes and crime. Hackers built Unix and the Internet. Hackers hack together solutions with the resources available to serve a purpose or solve a problem. Tinkerers play for hobby and education.

    Crackers and script kiddies are responsible for ruining lives and businesses.

    /rant

    • Rustmilian
      3•1 year ago

      Typing a command in the terminal is not hacking , just because you made a change to the system doesn’t mean you “hacked it”, it’s basic functionality of Linux; being no different from changing a setting, it’s just using an interactive user interface that’s text based. Additionally, Valve doesn’t put anything to block the changes; They even encourage those whom want to make these changes. There is no problem to solve.

      I’m sick of people assuming Terminal = Hacking, it’s a blatantly false stereotype that only serves to scare monger people into thinking the terminal is “1337 Haxers only”.

      Crackers and script kiddies are responsible for ruining lives and businesses.

      Script kiddies & Crackers aren’t even hackers; Hackers build their own tools; Script kiddies & Crackers are at most a customer or plagiarist.

      I hate how the media hijacked “hacking” as a catch all for malicious purposes and crime.

      Hacking is the practice of extending or exploiting a system to do something it wasn’t originally designed to do.
      This could mean modifying source code, injecting mods, exploiting a vulnerability, etc.
      Contrary to popular belief this doesn’t automatically make any of the examples ”malicious”, because if you’re using your own property or have permission it’s completely legal.

      • @[email protected]
        3•1 year ago

        I thought hacking “originally” just meant figuring things out? …like short for hacking away at figuring out how to do things.

        • Rustmilian
          1•1 year ago

          Why did you quote “originally” when you’re using it in a completely different context?
          No, not in the context of computer hacking. if that was the definition then there’d be no difference between a “hacker” & a programmer who builds consumer applications. Finding solutions to a problem is just every programmer ever.

          • @[email protected]English
            1•1 year ago

            That is not entirely correct, the definition of hacking you are using is much newer. In the past, hacking was a much more broad term, like those above you were stating.

            A hacker is a person skilled in information technology who uses their technical knowledge to achieve a goal or overcome an obstacle, within a computerized system by non-standard means. Though the term hacker has become associated in popular culture with a security hacker – someone who utilizes their technical know-how of bugs or exploits to break into computer systems and access data which would otherwise be inaccessible to them – hacking can also be utilized by legitimate figures in legal situations.

            • Wikipedia entry for Hacker

            It is still common in the open source community for people to use the original meaning of hacker. The hackers you are referring to are security hackers or crackers.

            • Rustmilian
              2•1 year ago

              It is still common in the open source community for people to use the original meaning of hacker.

              Actually the Open Source use of the term is already incapsulated in the extending portion of the definition I provided. Along with the modifying source code example.

              Additional example : Kernel Hacking; Linux.
              You’re a 3rd party extending it beyond it’s original design by modifying the source code to add additional or new functionality under the legal protection of the GPL, regardless if you do or don’t make a PR that gets accepted.

              The hackers you are referring to are security hackers or crackers.

              Actually no. The definition provided is far broader as already shown.
              The key in the definition is beyond it's original design , say for example I take source code from Grub and I extend it by adding additional functionality that allows me to play pacman directly inside it. This modification goes beyond the authors original design and doesn’t just change a pre-existing feature from it’s default setting like running a terminal command does.

              Anyway, none of this is the point.
              The point is that there’s a hard distinction between a Hacker and your Average Terminal User running a command in a shell interface. Shell interfaces like that of ZSH, BASH, etc. only serves as a way for the user to interact with the pre-existing features of the system.

          • @[email protected]
            1•1 year ago

            I used quotes because I wasn’t sure if that was the real original use. (Also because I don’t pay attention to or know proper grammar rules).

            • RustmilianEnglish
              2•11 months ago

              Ah, ok. It’s just that it reads like you’re quoting me.