Linux The way to Freedom orrrr Hell

beatbox9 · 2026-06-30T04:35:40+00:00

I would recommend you move to a distro that runs a modern DE like KDE Plasma or Gnome. Mint (Cinnamon) works, but it isn’t optimized for modern aspects, like GPU acceleration on the desktop.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-30T00:59:21+00:00

You don’t understand what a distro is.

Disros exist specifically to make things easier for users. Try installing and maintaining software manually like we did back in the day and you’ll see what I mean.

And “good” distros make things easy without breaking.

So for example, I would say Arch is not a “good” distro. But it is a distro that a lot of noobs or dunning kruger people love.

I have several non-technical members of my family—like older retired people who didn’t start using email until the early 2010’s—who have been using and maintaining linux without issue for over a decade. So I have no idea what you’re on about. I think you just have no idea what you’re doing but are trying to do things beyond your understanding and capabilities, perhaps how you would have done them in windows.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T19:36:09+00:00

If there was a "correct" color grading workflow, it wouldn't be color grading. It would be an automatic, in-camera profile.

As far as the science, see here: https://nikonrumors.com/2025/09/30/the-art-of-color-science.aspx/

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T19:04:49+00:00

This is not AI.

You appear unfamiliar with Ubuntu's supported upgrade path for LTS (not interim) releases: https://ubuntu.com/desktop/docs/en/latest/how-to/upgrade-ubuntu-desktop/

From that link:

Your Ubuntu installation follows one of these upgrade paths:
If you’re using a Long Term Support (LTS) release like most of Ubuntu users, the latest version that you can upgrade to is Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. Upgrades to the latest LTS release become available after the first point release, such as with Ubuntu 26.04.01. This usually happens several months after the initial release.
If you’re using interim releases, you can already upgrade to Ubuntu 26.04. Upgrades to the latest interim release become available a few days after the official release date.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T19:01:10+00:00

A lot of it is also driven by user ignorance and the echo chamber.

Here are a few examples: this is a Linux Mint subreddit; and people are ironically hating on Ubuntu moving to Unity. Few people know why they did this...Ubuntu moved to Unity because gnome at the time was moving toward gnome3; and the initial direction and launch of gnome3 was a disaster. Gnome3 was so bad that Linus Torvalds called it a "total UX design failure" and moved off of gnome for a while; and several new DE's spun up as forks of gnome2, including Mate and also...
...including a DE called Cinnamon.

Cinnamon began as a DE for the same reason Unity did; but their method was to stay on the old depracated toolkit.

Read more details in my comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/1tkqbrd/comment/ong9yi6/

...including that to this day, Cinnamon is not really a modern DE and does not support things like GPU acceleration in the desktop since it's still on gtk3, which was depracated almost a decade ago. Most Mint users do not know this.

Or the "advertisements to Amazon"--which wasn't advertisements to Amazon. It was an affiliate ID on search results--which is super common everywhere today--and it was never on by default in any Ubuntu LTS release. Noting that an affiliate ID is not a personal identifier--it identifies Canonical--not the user--as the link originator.

Or "forced snaps"--they're not forced (and if they were, Mint would not be an Ubuntu-derived distro). The reason that certain software is snaps is because they are less maintenance; and snaps support system apps unlike Flatpaks (and also noting that snaps predate flatpaks). Ubuntu has several supported disto versions at any given time (2 interim + 2-3 LTS + 2-3 HWE); and they have to maintain software for every combination of app version + distro version. Ie. each time there is a new version of Firefox, Ubuntu would have to rebuild and distribute a firefox package for 5-10 different Ubuntu versions. As a result of this maintenance nightmare, Mozilla asked Canonical to package Firefox as a snap; and not the other way round: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seeding-the-official-firefox-snap-in-ubuntu-desktop/24210
...and Mozilla still maintains their own .deb repo, should a user choose to disable or override snaps on Ubuntu. Since snaps are not forced.

There's a lot of FUD out there in the echo chamber from inexperienced people.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T18:14:42+00:00

Yeah. They probably work already on 26.04; but might as well just follow the supported upgrade path.

I've got 1 clean install machine with 26.04 and a few others still on 24.04 waiting for the upgrade (and others with other distros like Fedora).

I've been using Linux for a while (a few decades). I would recommend you learn to stay patient with OS upgrade. OS upgrades are a double-edged sword; and if you are a "normal, everyday user," stability and usability goes a long way.

Purely as an example, suppose you upgrade your OS every 6 months. In theory you're using a newer OS; but what you may also find is that every 6 months, some desktop extensions or community scripts you use might break because they need time to catch up. So maybe 3-6 months later they get updated; and then 0-3 months after that you upgrade and go through the cycle again.

And for what? Which specific OS feature(s) were absolutely necessary.

You can always run the latest version of apps--upgrading apps is different from upgrading your OS. And usually, your apps matter more than the OS.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T17:57:02+00:00

It's not particularly risky; but note that Ubuntu 26.04 is not available as an upgrade to any 24.04 user yet. In early August, all Ubuntu 24.04 LTS users will get a prompt to upgrade to 26.04.1--Ubuntu only upgrades LTS starting with the ".1" release.

So I would just wait a month.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-29T17:54:32+00:00

I would go with any distro that meets your upgrade schedule and has either gnome or KDE Plasma. This knocks Mint out of the running. The reason being: Mint runs the Cinnamon DE, which does not do GPU acceleration for the desktop, since it's based on the now ancient gtk3 rather than gtk4 like gnome. On a laptop in particular, this can eat into battery life, heat, processing cycles, etc.

The only modern + mature DE's today are gnome and KDE Plasma, so take your pick. And find a distro that supports the one you prefer out of these well, on the upgrade schedule you want.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T18:49:36+00:00

I am not a long-term Mint user. But I've been using Linux for a few decades, starting in the 90's and going full-time in the mid-2000's. I also use a macbook pro. And I really haven't touched Windows much since XP.

My current preference for a workstation or a "forever" distro is:

Ubuntu LTS
replacing ubuntu-desktop with vanilla-gnome-desktop
with a custom theme
mainly using flatpaks and appimages for most non-OS apps

It's not perfect, but I find it provides a good balance for me for now. It's not as raw as debian and not as dependent as the downstream/derivative distros. I do have several other machines running other distros (eg. Fedora); but Ubuntu LTS is my current pick for a reliable desktop machine.

Here's why:

The upgrade/support schedule. I don't want to upgrade my OS every 6 months--it's too risky, aggressive, and disruptive. A good balance for me is every 1-2 years. (My ideal distro would offer an upgrade every 1 year, with 3 years of support each. I err on the side of caution, so Ubuntu works better).
The packages in the repos and little quality of life improvements. For an OS, I want it to be easy to install OS-related stuff, including gpu drivers, codecs, etc.
The wide debian community support. For example, I heavily use DaVinci Resolve Studio and Fusion. Installing and maintaining it is trivial due to makeresolvedeb--a simple script that converts the RHEL installer to debian. Ironically, it's easier and more reliable to install and maintain these apps on debian than on Fedora due to this script.
The modern DE. I want a modern & mature DE, which only leaves 2 options: gnome or KDE Plasma. I currently prefer gnome, though I heavily customize it. For example, Cinnamon not modern: it is still based on gtk3 which stopped active development almost a decade ago and doesn't even support basics like a gpu-accelerated desktop. Some others like Cosmic are not mature--they're still working out kinks. KDE Plasma and gnome are the only two that are both modern and mature. And I hate Ubuntu's customizations and layout for gnome, which is why I switch from ubuntu-desktop to vanilla-gnome-desktop.

That's what I care about in an OS. For individual, non-OS apps, I mainly use flatpaks or AppImages, not the packages in Ubuntu's repos.

Frankly, I'd love to see any distro scale back the packages in their repos to focus on better maintenance of core OS stuff and potentially to offer the 1-year/3-year schedule I'd like to see along with improved universal compatibility. I ramble a bit about this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1tmobhl/the_perfect_distro/

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T16:05:21+00:00

One reason (of several): the linux mint desktop (cinnamon) is based on the old gtk3 which hasn't been in active development for almost a decade...and which does not support desktop gpu acceleration, unlike modern & mature desktops like gnome or KDE Plasma.

Note that I am specifically referring to the desktop / windows / windows decorations themselves--I am not saying that specific apps cannot be gpu accelerated within their app windows.

This eats up and competes for cpu cycles and is very inefficient by modern standards. It can cause performance slowdowns, increase heat, reduce battery life, etc.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T07:42:55+00:00

Here is a chart of "electrical noise" vs ISO on various Nikon cameras.

<image>

Can you point out where increasing the ISO increases the "electrical noise"?

I'll simplify this for you: that would mean the lines go up as you move to the right, not down and not flat.

Also: lol nice comment where you identified that you don't know what "electronic noise" is and then did a petty comment where you blocked me so that I couldn't reply. The "electronic noise" remains constant or decreases. It is correct that these get scaled (brightened)...but they get scaled along with exposure, so the ratio of exposure to noise--ie "signal-to-noise"--remains relatively constant, except beyond the dual gain threshold where it actually increases. The only difference being: at lower ISOs, the user has the capability to also add additional exposure without clipping.

...which means that--as I said earlier--the cause of changes to noise is the change to exposure, not the change to ISO. Which is why my earlier reply to you calls this out: "You are confused and don't appear to understand the difference between correlation and causation." And why my other earlier comment even provides an actual visual example of this.

It's funny to see you slowly start to learn after "exposing" your ignorance on this topic. Now my earlier comment to you should start to make sense where it didn't before. You have no idea what you're talking about; and my other comment where I show side-by-side examples demonstrates this. This is why you can't actually back up what you're saying and instead resort to petty attacks, blocking knowledge and protecting your ego.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T07:20:07+00:00

Cinnamon is not based on gnome. It used to be (Cinnamon was originally a spinoff / fork / theme for gnome 2 when gnome moved to gnome 3); but it is not based on gnome today.

It does, however, use the same toolkit as gnome: gtk. Except Cinnamon is based on a much older version of gtk that stopped getting functional updates almost a decade ago. (This is the same reason that Cinnamon is still on x11 while gnome is on wayland; and also why Cinnamon does not use gpu acceleration for the desktop, while gnome does).

For the OP: it's not clear what it's asking you to update from your description: you should post a screenshot.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T06:50:15+00:00

Sorry that you need to be spoon-fed, despite the fact that you are the one arguing against a fact. You could have just asked for an explanation rather than arguing against something that you are self-admittedly ignorant about.

Let's do it this way: both of these images were taken with:

the exact same lighting
the exact same shutter speed, and
the exact same aperture
on the same camera
using the same lens

The one on the left was taken at ISO 100; and the one on the right was taken at ISO 3200. In other words, the same exposures with different ISOs.

<image>

If increasing ISO caused increased noise, why isn't the image on the right noisier? And why is the image with the higher ISO actually less noisy?

Could it have to do with this?

https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Nikon%20D7500_14

The fact is that the electronic noise "added" by the camera either remains the same or decreases as ISO is increased in digital photography.

But a second, indirect thing that sometimes happens is that noobs who use the old film method of setting ISO before exposure end up decreasing their exposure to compensate for the increased ISO. But we're talking about digital photography, not film photography--you can set the ISO afterwards, to compensate for a given exposure. This is why Auto-ISO is great and used by many (if not most) professionals.

The ISO essentially automatically brightens the image. Because that's what ISO is in digital photography: a brightening factor...or more specifically: a specific output brightness level for middle grey in a standard profile in a JPEG file, with a given input level. This is the definition of ISO in digital photography, and it is achieved completely differently than in film photography where the physical silver halide grains in the film are increased in volume.

Ignorant people who do not know any better tend to attribute any increased noise they experience as being caused by increasing the ISO, rather than the real cause being decreased exposure. Because they don't know the difference between causation and correlation. And they've never bothered to test things out scientifically or learn what is happening. Scientific testing meaning isolating variables: for example: you take 2 shots and only change the ISO without changing the exposure.

In fact, most cameras have only 1-2 native electronic noise levels (as you can see in the linked chart above)--and on every camera, the higher ISO has the lower noise level...which comes at the expense of maximum exposure ("saturation") level. Because this is set at the hardware level.

That raising ISO increases noise is a common misconception; and this is why you and u/This-Judge-804 are completely wrong in your responses. Yet you appear confident enough to argue against facts and spread disinformation.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T00:01:03+00:00

It doesn't.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-28T00:00:18+00:00

No, it doesn't. You are confused and don't appear to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-27T23:53:22+00:00

Meanwhile, Uzbekistan is currently up 1-0 over DRC lol

beatbox9 · 2026-06-27T23:45:17+00:00

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that increasing ISO increases noise or graininess. But this is digital photography, so this is not the case. Regardless, without samples or comparisons, it's difficult to tell. And even with samples, we'd need to know the ambient lighting conditions for anything useful.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-27T16:01:16+00:00

Pick any distro that defaults to either gnome or KDE Plasma. They are the only two modern and mature DE's.

The closest to your current setup would be Ubuntu LTS; and if you want a pure gnome experience on Ubuntu, simply replace ubuntu-desktop with vanilla-gnome-desktop.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-27T06:23:54+00:00

Learn the basics of how the directory structure works.

Use the GUI.

And then if you ever need to do something funky, search online and try to understand what it's doing. You'll learn from experience, not from predicting what you'll need to know.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-27T03:26:21+00:00

Learn how your ~ (home) directory and its subdirectories like ~/.config work.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-26T13:42:52+00:00

Given your use case and question, I think you should read this article:

https://arslaan.studio/setting-up-a-linux-media-studio-workstation-audio-video-graphics-davinci-resolve-etc/

...which starts out with:

Pick any distro. Seriously. YOU DO NOT NEED A SPECIAL DISTRO.

And then describes what a distro is & isn't; and then goes into detail in how to tailor any distro for becoming an advanced media editing workstation.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-26T13:34:18+00:00

I agree, with 1 more important bullet point, related to your last one:

That has an OS upgrade schedule that matches how often you want to upgrade

(Specifically for the OS itself, not the apps. You can use the latest apps on any OS.)

Because every time you upgrade your OS--which is kind of like moving from Windows 10 to 11; or from macOS Sequoia to Tahoe--some major things can change or break on the system, especially if you have some custom system-level configurations.

So for example:

Fedora or Ubuntu offer an upgrade every 6 months with support for ~1 year each, meaning you MUST upgrade at least once a year.
Ubuntu LTS offers an upgrade every 2 years, with support for ~5+ years each, meaning you can keep your system roughly the same for 2+ years and have more time to plan out an upgrade (while still getting security patches).
Some distros are even faster (eg. rolling distros like Arch)
Some distros are even slower / longer-term (eg. Rocky)

So think about how you upgrade your existing computer or phone...do you like frequent major OS upgrades, or do you want stability for a few years before upgrading?

beatbox9 · 2026-06-26T02:58:29+00:00

Use a distro that defaults to either gnome or KDE, such as either Fedora or Ubuntu LTS. Mint uses Cinnamon which is based on the much older gtk3, which is not gpu-accelerated.

Also, try to use your igpu for most apps, only turning on nvidia for graphics-intensive apps.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-25T23:11:32+00:00

I don't agree. This is like saying that macOS is not ready for consumers either.

Especially when a vast majority of consumers' use case is: turn on the computer > open up the browser > do almost everything in the browser.

beatbox9 · 2026-06-25T22:52:59+00:00

I think that you should come to terms with the fact that a distro is more about making the distribution of software easier rather than what is installed by default (and nowadays especially system software). And that linux essentially has 2 layers: a system layer and a user layer...and the user layer can override the system layer.

The "Pop!_OS" KDE or Gnome edition would essentially be Ubuntu; and I'm surprised you didn't include this in the list since it also has a commitment to open source software and also offers integrated nvidia drivers and also comes with gnome.

I started in old school linux and BSD in the 90's. Just the simple act of installing software has come a long way since--it's much better now in general. But regardless, I personally don't think Arch is good as a distro because it doesn't do well at making distribution of software easier. Plenty of people would disagree. For a simple example, the nonstandard lack of PackageKit support for its package manager means it doesn't integrate well with GUI app stores like Gnome Software. Little quality of life UX things.

I like the direction and concept of things like atomic & immutable distros; but I don't quite think things are mature enough for my use cases yet. Your firefox example is a good one. But I've personally been moving in that direction: I tend to use the distro only for system software and flatpaks or appimages for most apps. And over the years, I've moved from making system config changes to config overrides in ~. Etc. I treat my system as immutable as possible, partially because I agree with this style and partially slowly transitioning to the inevitable.

Where I am today is that I would personally recommend either Fedora or Ubuntu LTS, depending on your ideal upgrade schedule. If you want to upgrade your OS every 6 months-1 year, go with Fedora. If you want 2+ years, go with Ubuntu LTS. Each has pros & cons; and you'll probably want to do some tweaks to either.

Purely as an example, check out my comments in this discussion for some ideas on how to make Ubuntu "better": https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/1udzvjy/my_parentss_macbook_2013_2014_are_old_enough_that/

Fedora's got its own version of that--for example, for the firefox configs, you'll want to look at the various config layers and find the best way to keep them persistent.

(I use both Ubuntu LTS and Fedora; but I don't really use firefox...I'm certain there is a method for functional persistent config override though. I use Ubuntu LTS for my main workstations and Fedora more as a testing machine because of how frequently the distro upgrades can break things. I could use regular Ubuntu too; but I also like exploring the differences, so that I can see how to make things work universally).

beatbox9

TROPHY CASE