Switchdesk is a GUI for changing the default desktop once they’re installed, not for installing desktops.
The top of the page you link explains how to install alternative desktops which is using DNF. The GUI route to do this would be to use a DNF frontend like DNFDragora and search for the relevant desktop metapackage, and then install that.
NixOS config just sets Fstab. The issue was “nofail” was not set. This config calls that out which is good, but the issue isn’t fstab, it’s wherever OP got guidance on automounting drives in fstab as that guidance clearly failed to highlight the importance of the nofail mount option.
The issue isn’t fstab. The nixos thing posted there would have the exact same issue: if nofail wasn’t included in the configuration, the system would go to emergency mode when it can’t find a drive.
Fstab is the “File System Table”, and NixOS still uses it. In your case, a non-essential auto-mounting drive was not correctly flagged as “nofail” in your Fstab; when the system couldn’t find that drive it treated it as essential and locked the system down.
This is very frustrating, and I’ve been there myself by accident but the system does this for good reason. When you have a drive listed to automount in fstab without the “nofail” flag set, if the drive is unavailable the system will boot into emergency mode. This is because without “nofail” it is deemed the drive is an essential part of the system, and Linux won’t boot to prevent unintended damage. A drive might be unplugged or it might be failing and corrupted; but the OS has no way of knowing why the drive isn’t there; it juts knows it’s essential and locks itself down to allow you to fix the problem and prevent damage.
Emergency mode is a bit daunting, but booting into it when a essential drive is missing is actually a safety feature to prevent you experiencing data loss or unintended consequences.
The real issue here is not how fstab works, but rather wherever you got guidance on auto-mounting a drive in Linux. You have to actively set up a drive to automount (linux by default only automounts the root system) - so either you yourself edited the fstab or you used a GUI tool to do it. Fedora does not do this automatically. Whatever guide you followed is the problem here: A good guide should have explained how fstab works, and particularly what “nofail” is and how important it is. If it was a GUI method (like Gpart of KDE Partition Manager), then they also include methods to mark a drive as non-essential (in KDE Partition Manager for example, when setting up a mount point you’d need to ensure “Don’t prevent the system from booting if not mountable”). The guide you followed should have flagged this things up. I know it seems harsh but brutally, you did this. It can be a tough pill to take with linux but the more you tinker, the more you are responsible for when things go wrong; so it’s honestly really useful to actually learn how the things you’re changing work.
If you’d like to understand fstab, the Arch linux wiki has a decent overview: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Fstab
It links through to a page on mount options in fstab for ext4 file system, which includes nofail and many other options: https://man.archlinux.org/man/ext4.5#Mount_options_for_ext4
I would go through your fstab and ensure that any other auto-mounted drives not essential for boot (e.g. media drives or external drives or USB drives) are marked as nofail. Last thing you want is being locked out of yourself if an unessential drive does fail, as emergency mode can be tedious way to problem solve that issue. But before you make any changes, back up your fstab file, and also briefly learn how to use emergency mode (you probably already have learnt how to manually mount the root file system in emergency mode from Chatgpt, but this is an essential first step to fix most problems in emergency mode)
The big difference between distros is really how they build their distro and for what ends. Some distros are “general purpose”, some are focused on specific roles/tasks like gaming or programming or servers, some are about stability, others are about cutting edge features. And you also have different underlying design philosophies - OSS vs proprietary, or Ext4 vs BRTFS, or Immutable vs mutable, pre-packaged vs build yourself.
So yeah, distro choice really does matter. The wide range of choices don’t exist because people are being contrarian; they exist because linux can be shaped to different purposes and goals.
But I think the message to new users is also correct: distro choice doesn’t matter much if you’re starting out and just want a basic desktop environment. Whats going on in the backend or the design philosophy of the distro doesn’t change the experience for most end users doing day to day tasks. A KDE or Gnome desktop environment with Firefox will feel the same, and gaming or word processing will be largely the same. It’s when you want to go beyond generic use that the distro choice starts to matter…
This is interesting, thanks for sharing. I think I even know the post you’re talking about that inspired this - was it in the thread where someone was asking why OSS companies don’t migrate away from Github, and someone responded that a lot of OSS projects are actually commercially run and don’t really care about Microsoft owning Github?
I think your post is a good counter point in a sense that the relationship between OSS projects and corporate interests is complex and has always been there. The opportunity for GNU & Linux was born out of the corporate shenanigans you mention, even if corporations are heavily involved in both now.
I think the original poster was kinda right to highlight that OSS isn’t really as egalitarian and hobbyist as some people like to paint it. But OSS software and projects borne out of the post BSD era did chart us on a much more collaborative course, and the licenses that evolved from that era have also limited the abilities of companies to dominate or abuse OSS completely. Far from perfect of course, but one of the many interesting “cause and effect” actions that have helped to make GNU & Linux, and many other associated open source projects become what they are now.
Yeah and in reality people are lazy and go for the easiest route (not a criticism; it’s just human nature). The AUR is popular because it’s easy to download from; the problem is that it was based on the assumption that “someone” is keeping it secure. As it was so popular people assumed that it must be secure because everyone else is using it, and particularly with reassuring voices on tech forums who make a it a badge of honour to use the AUR with Arch. So the AUR has been normalised for lots of users.
It’s a bit like how Wikipedia is trusted by lots of people but in reality there are huge issues with bias and factual errors. People seem to forget/?ignore the warnings that Wikipedia should never be treated as a primary source - because it’s quick and convenient to just look at what’s on Wikipedia and believe it.
I saw someone saying they use Arch because Arch + AUR is the closest you can get to a Windows-like experience on Linux; the AUR provides a huge range of software. The problem is that the Windows-like experience is the ultimate open trust based network. You can download software from anyone anywhere and launch it on your computer. Windows is also a hotbed of malware and viruses as a result, even with the restrictions that Microsoft has put on users over the years.
Securing the AUR is nigh on impossible I think; it’s hard enough for distros and OSS projects to find enough people to maintain close trust-based systems in popular projects let alone the people needed to do the code audits and package checks for 100k+ user submitted packages. Maybe they can change their model a bit though - have a curated section of popular packages that do undergo some kind of audit and “certification”. I think it’ll survive this as it’s a popular resource for all it’s issues, but trust has rightly been dented. And in fairness that was a false trust as the AUR has never pretended to be anything other than what it is: people have chosen to accept the warnings that they use it at their own risk.
So: Iran keep insiting Lebanon is part of the deal. Israel keeps insisting it is not.
The question really is will a deal be signed, or will Israel refuse to withdraw from Lebanon and yet again Trumps promises are empty nonsense. The US lost this war, but can it reign in Israel to help it exit the war?
Not sure how it distracts? People are capable of thinking about more than one thing.
I now associate Trump with Jan 6, Epstein, ICE and his failed war in Iran amongst many other things.
The reality is lots of Americans are Trump apologists and agree with what he’s doing. That’s why there isn’t more outrage or action.
Can you enable DDC/CI in the monitors on-screen menus?
If so, and if there aren’t drivers available (I can’t find drivers when searching MF2208-A), then if you can enable DDC/CI you can use 3rd party tools to control the brightness. Display Dimmer and ClickMonitorDDC are 2 I found on a quick google.
If Linux can control the monitor, then it sounds like a lack of drivers for Windows but the display should still support DDC/CI; 3rd party tools do sometimes still work in this scenario for DDC/CI in Windows.
Yeah this seems a fair summary, although I think the question more accurately should be “Why do AAA games now take 6+ years to make?”
There are plenty of smaller and indie games that don’t take 6 years. There are also plenty of smaller and indie games that do take 6+ years but for somewhat different reasons.
It’s a bit of a dumb “gotcha” question to be honest.
Name 3 Indian people right now? Name 3 Russian people right now? Name 3 Argentinian people right now?
Most people don’t have a list of go-to names in their pockets based on nationality. And people in Europe will be much more familiar with other Europeans, and also Americans because we’re inundated in coverage.
I’m British with Irish heritage and I’m struggling on the spot to name 3 Irish people alive right now, yet I see a lot of Irish comedians, actors, musicians and TV shows on British TV.
It’s a specious argument that the question reveals what it purports to. Instead it reveals people are shit when put on the spot, and especially the further outside their day-to-day familiarity you go.
Sorry but this is a nonsense doom-mongering take. The Trans rights issue is a complex mess but it’s not the end of democracy. That is hyperbolic nonsense.
The UK Supreme Court ruling is a reflection of a huge problem facing all countries: how do you reconcile women’s right and trans rights? The Supreme Court ruled that in the UK Equality Act, the terms “Man”, “Woman” and “Sex” referred to biological sex at birth, not gender identity and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a persons biological sex under the law.
This was a clarification of the law as it stands; this was the way the legislation had been written and it ensures the Equality Act is applied clearly. It is not anti-democratic; Parliament makes the law and the courts interpret how it is written and remove ambiguity.
As this article mentions: it is up to Parliament now to change the law if it wants to. Parliament IS sovereign and can amend the Equality Act or provide a new definition for gender/sex. But there is a brutal reality why it is not doing so: this is a hugely divisive issue particularly for the Labour party. Women’s rights and Transgender rights are in conflict, and it’s extremely difficult to reconcile that. We’ve already seen how this played out in Scotland for the SNP, and Labour are in the same position. It can be argued to be cowardly and weak of them not to try to resolve this issue, but it is not fundamentally undemocratic. Labour don’t want to discuss this because they want to focus on other issues that they see as helping them stay in power.
It’s a nonsense to say this is the “start of democratic collapse”. It’s correct that the Right-wing have moved against trans rights, but for the Left it’s a paralysis of inaction due to there not being a simple solution that can please both sides. Women’s rights activists fundamentally hold that biological sex is immutable as that underpins their rights; Trans rights activists fundamentally hold that gender is not immutable as that underpins their rights.
Other countries are or will go through similar issues. Other rights like gender equality, race equality, Gay rights etc were controversial but they did not as fundamentally bring two groups rights into conflict. Arguably Gay rights and rights of religious expression did come into conflict and remain in conflict, and that was a long drawn out process but eventually there was a form of consensus. That is constantly under attack in multiple countries, and the balance may shift again on issues like Gay marriage if the Right-wing have their way. But with Trans-rights we have not even reached a stable political consensus of any form - it remains hugely controversial on the Right and Left for different reasons.
People seem to look back at the various rights issues over the past century and see a pattern of inevitability of the “good” winning, and people gaining their rights. Instead it’s a story of constant fighting and battles by different groups to be heard, and for their rights to be established and recognised. That war is ongoing in all those areas whether that is gender, race, sexual orientation etc. For Trans rights, we’re still in the worst part of the fighting. As with other rights issues, it may ultimately be resolved to some extent as we have generational changes that society changes and the law changes. Just as Gen X and Millenials had to come to the fore before Gay rights were finally recognised and enshrined properly in law in most countries, it may well be that it won’t be until Gen Z and Gen Alpha come to the fore in politics that their own social and political views on this are reflected in the law. Gen Z and Gen Alpha seem to be much more comfortable with seeing gender as changeable and not immutable like biological sex - that will inform the way things go long term.
This is not a failure of democracy. This is democracy in action. It is slow, it is flawed, and it seldom makes everyone happy. But change does slowly happen and things do generally get better over time as we have seen across the last 100+ years. People who believe in Trans rights need to keep fighting, they need to keep drawing attention to the issues and their plight and they must be organised and influence those people standing in the next general election, and the one after that and so on. Change can be achieved but it is seldom easy. But at the same time, Women’s rights activists also need to be listened to and the fundamental concerns around encroachment on their rights have to be addressed. I can’t pretend to know what the final answer will be - it is hugely complex and controversial with reason on both sides.
News coverage of elections is so poor.
Plaid “won” the election with 35.4% of the vote. UK journalists are so used to the “winner takes all” First past the post system, they report proportional representation elections like this as if they’re the same. Plaid is going to be a minority government, and the reality is even if the Greens and Lib Dems went into coalition with them they would be short of a majority. Reform, Labour and Conservatives (and probably Greens and Lib Dems regardless) would not be motivated to support Plaid so it’ll be a slow process of negotiating every piece of legislation.
Wales is well used to minority governments but the stakes are higher this time for all the opposition parties, as all of them are going to be vying for Wales’ Parliamentary seats in the next general election. Plaid will too of course, but unlike the other parties Plaid is not part of the 5 way split in national politics that will dominate the next few years. So Plaid will be dealing with opposition parties that may not be that co-operative in Wales, as they care much more about how things look going into a General election.
Wales was pro-brexit (52.5% Brexit) like England (53.4% Brexit). Scotland was pro EU (62% remain) and Northern Ireland too (55% remain).
Also Plaid are the largest party but don’t have a majority; they got 35.4% of the vote - way off getting a mandate for an independence referendum. Second with 29.3% of the vote was Reform, which is rabidly anti EU and a unionist party.
The problem is a navy can’t win this kind of battle no matter how many reserves it has. The more ships the US bring in, the more targets for the iranian drones to hit. They’re just there as expensive decoys, not able to clear mines and not able to destroy the drone launchers.
And from Iran’s point of view they don’t need to hit much to cause chaos - the threat of being hit is enough to drive insurance prices through the roof and dissuade shipping to take the risk of traversing the strait.
The BBC has had below inflation (or no) uplifts in the license fee for years which means it’s been effectively cut.
If you look at wikipedia there is a nice graph of the license fee corrected for inflation, based around 2015 prices. The recent license fee in 2019 was equivalent to about £154, but it used to be worth £192. That’s a 20% cut, and on top of that we’ve had 6 more years of below inflation rises, and of course some big spikes in inflation.
Using the Bank of England inflation calculator ; the license fee should be worth £201 now in 2026 if it’d just stayed equivalent to £154 in 2019, but the actual license fee is £180 so another 10% cut on top of the existing 20% cut from it’s peak. If the license fee was still at it’s peak value of equivalent to £192 in 2009 (in 2019 money), then it should be £250 now.
So long story short, the current license fee of £180 is a 28% cut in value in 17 years. No wonder the BBC is in trouble, is constantly cutting costs and shrinking. It’s a managed decline by successive UK governments who won’t deal with funding the BBC properly.
Personally, I’d abolish the license fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. I personally favour a household free-media precept, a bit like the Fire precept we get in council tax; but I get that council tax is also a mess. Regardless, every household should be paying in some way even if they “don’t use the BBC”, because it’s about so much more than about whether someone owns and watches live TV. The BBC is one of the ways we preserve our culture and identity in the face of the massive global media and tech conglomerates like Netflix, Amazon etc. And the license fee is used to fund more than just TV (Radio, Online, local and national news services).
And Music? But they’d still need subfolders to keep the content organised and then it begs the question why hide it all away a whole layer lower down from the Home folder?
How small is your smallest device? BTRFS doesn’t have a minimum size, but practically probably 50-100mb is just about doable before even just setting things up get complex. Having said that though, it’s copy-on-write and has overhead as a result, so may not function well below 1gb.
ZFS meanwhile really won’t work well below probably 8gb. It’s also copy-on-write but with a lot more overhead due to how it works. It really works best on big drives and filesystems.
If your old storage is in the mb range, then really neither will help you achieve what you want.
BTRFS and ZFS do offer the same benefits as NTFS with regard to compression and speeding up some slower devices (due to lowering the actual read/writes needed to achieve the same result as the data is compressed into a smaller space and decompressed rapidly by the PC in memory), but NTFS can go be used on much smaller disk sizes due to how it works. BTRFS and ZFS are designed and optimised with other benefits in mind. And NTFS compression isn’t well supported in Linux.
Before you do anything, backup /home.
You can reinstall your system while preserving and expanding your /home partition; this is probably the cleanest and safest way to sort your disk. It allows you to move the boot and filesystem partitions to the start of the disk while keeping /home untouched, and then separately resize /home to fill the rest of the drive. You could not reinstall and manually move the partition but it’s slow and riskier when messing with a boot and main filesystem partition; much easier to start again tbh.
I’d get a USB and install Ventoy on it. Ventoy is a great bootable USB tool that lets you drop multiple different bootable ISOs on it (instead of reflashing the drive every time) & pick one at boot; great for installs and also to keep around as a recovery drive. I’d then put on it an ISO file of your preferred linux distro, and also a separate ISO file of a good live distro for recovery. GParted Live is particularly good USB live distro for this because resizing the partition is the aim, but almost any good USB Live Distro will do
I’d then boot up the USB drive and select the ISO for your Linux distro’s installer. During install, in the partition section, I’d then use the partition tool in your installer. Dlete all the windows partitions (sda1, sda2, sda3 and sda4), and then delete the exisiting boot (/boot/efi) and root file system (/) and create new ones at the beginning of the disk: 1gb /boot/efi and 85gb / system partiton as you have now, and ensure the existing /home partition is kept and mounted as /home in the new install. You’ll have loads of free unpartitioned space; leave that for now.
After the system is reinstalled, I’d boot in, check everything is ok, and then restart and boot the USB again, this time selecting GParted Live. Then with GParted Live, I’d resize the /home partition to fill all the empty space.
But as I said, before you do anything, backup /home. Also before you do anything you can use a partition tool now (like KDE Partition or Gparted) to add a label/name to your /home drive so there is no confusion when you use use the Linux installer or Gparted later. But it should be clear from the size alone.