Even Arch Linux could learn from the Arch Wiki.

The Debian Wiki would actually like a word.

There is stuff in there that’s not found anywhere else. For example while researching driverless printing recently I found a huge page on the Debian Wiki but the Arch wiki only has a paragraph saying supporting printers should be detected automatically.

Why can’t the installation create aliases like

flatpak run jellyfin-media-player ? And then highlight conflicts during?

This is extremely simple to fix with scripts that can be automatically created on install time. Here is a quick script I just wrote. It will search for first matching app and run it. Just save the script as flatrun, give it executable bit and put it into $PATH. Run it as like this: flatrun freetube

#!/usr/bin/env bash

# flatrun e
# flatrun freetube

if [ "${#}" -eq 0 ]; then
	flatpak list --app --columns=name,application
else
	app="$(
		flatpak list --app --columns=name,application |
			grep -i -F "${@}" |
			awk -F'\t' '{print $2}'
	)"

	if [ -z "${app}" ]; then
		flatpak list --app --columns=name,application
	elif [[ "$(echo "${app}" | wc -l)" -gt 1 ]]; then
		echo "${app}"
	else
		flatpak run "${app}"
	fi
fi

Edit: Just updated the script to output the list of matching apps, if it matches more than one.

It’d be dangerous if an installed app claimed to be something like sudo or bash. Even if a mechanism was created for flatpak apps to claim a single shell command, there is no centralized authority on all flatpak apps to vet them. If there was for flathub, and each uploaded package was checked, that still leaves every other non-flathub flatpak repo which must implement the same vetting. Because there’s no way to guarantee to do it safely, and because flatpak devs are unwilling to compromise, this is just what we get.

https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/1188

honestly I wished the arch wiki turned into a distro agnostic wiki. i have been using debian for decades and use arch wiki all the time but it would be nice to have a one stop shop for linux documentation. the Wikipedia of Linux run as a coalition.

Seconded. NixOS’s documentation has consistently been the worst I’ve read, always forcing me to go to the source code to try and understand what in the world is happening. It makes quick changes to new things nigh impossible. I had to resort to taking notes when I understood things about nix in order to retain the knowledge or at least link to where I could easily regain it.

The nixos wiki was marginally better and https://nixlang.wiki/ has been better. However the latter is less known so has less content. All in all, nix documentation is still bad.

The Debian Wiki is so much better than the Arch one.

Fedora’s installer is abysmal.

I thought so too. It doesn’t have enough options for power users and too many for newcomers. It caters to a middleground that barely exists.

Enabling access to proprietary software should also install audio/video codecs.

The codecs are also the #1 thing that annoy me in Fedora. Because of shitty US patent laws the rest of the world has to suffer.

Fortunately many flatpak browser now comes with codecs, like ungoogled chromium and librewolf.

The installer is the single one reason I can’t switch to fedora. I have several drives in my machine and I like to separate them, but their installer scares the shit out of me. I can pull it off for sure, but I just don’t want to take the risk

And know how to use an existing btrfs partition. And always [at least have an option to] show exactly what the automatic installer is going to do before I run anything. There’s gotta be a middle ground between “we’ll just surprise you” and “here, do everything yourself”.

Maybe you would like Void or Chimera

It’s difficult to find where to even download the thing, particularly if you’re looking for older versions

I love the look of the Debian website.

Gentoo and Arch do have easy installers (Arch via the Arch install script, Gentoo… Well, they provide stage 3 already built, a genkernel option, and even binary distribution now, which greatly simplifies the process)

Would it detract from Debian if it had an installer which was more intuitive to new users? As long as they don’t remove the options to configure, I see no harm, only benefits. To me, the thing about Debian is that it’s a community. If a distro wants to be elitistic, sure, that’s up to them, but I don’t see Debian having that goal.

I agree that there is beauty in simplicity. In my opinion, OpenBSD has the best website.
It’s not about using fancy effects, it’s about the sprawling logical layout and making it hard to navigate. It used to be better around 2005, when it had the left navigation index. I remember people said it was ugly then, but imho they changed the wrong aspects of it, removing the structure without adding simplicity.
For example, a new user reading this page https://l10n.debian.org/ will be confused. It only makes sense to me since I’ve already translated a bunch of debconf-po-files. These are my opinions, but you are welcome to disagree. Also, please don’t hit people with rolled up newspapers, it’s rude.

What I am really hoping catches on from Chimera is Turnstile: https://github.com/chimera-linux/turnstile

While I love that Chimera is Wayland only from the start ( no Xorg ), I do hope we get more DE options than just GNOME at some point.

Early days still for Chimera. I expect big things.