New To Linux? Learn The Jargon! 

DT is serving the future Linux community well ! :D

Exactly! We never stop learning

Honestly, you don't need the terms for running a Linux OS. It is just nice to know them if someone starts talking about their setup in my experience

i agree on the part two

I've never heard TUI and have used Linux since 2004.

For big programs, in the AUR always look for "program-name-bin" instead of just "program-name". The "-bin" part means binary. Otherwise, you are probably compiling.

@@DistroTube I know, I just didn't realize how big brave was. I have a rather small partition for my manjaro install since I dual-boot, and Brave filled the 60GBs I had left on the partition.

ive also done this, but it does make me feel like a 1337 haxxor when i compile it like that lol

reminds me of when i started out and didn't know the difference between -git, -bin packages etc.

Read The Friggin Manual!

@@AshtonSnapp Man-Pages!* lol

@@bobbybologna3029 Man is short for Manual!

When you install arch Linux you load up the iso file on USB and boot into it you will be greeted with nothing but black screen with text, there is only a bash shell. You are expected to install format and partition drives using nothing but your keyboard there is no mouse cursor at all you will have to connect to the internet using a command, and download X11 or wayland with a command and install whatever desktop with a command. Basically X11 and Wayland is what allows you to use a mouse and click things. It is the only way you can do anything graphical like play games or use a browser or have a background image or even images of any kind. If you didn't install X11 or wayland and tried to use a desktop environment you would be met with errors because your PC will have no idea what a GUI even is and only understands text. X11 and/or Wayland translates the pixels so your screen can show images etc... I hope that helps you understand.

@@enrott8560 yes, yes it did, I feel like a veil got lifted. It all made sense when you mentioned they are the ones who translate the pixels. Now I understand why for example it’s hard to share screens on wayland vs x11. Man thank you so much!!

@@ethanrivers4057 you're welcome dude

Try btop by aristocratos on github. There are fairly detailed instructions in the readme for different platforms. Honestly, i u are not on arch compiling through a helper like yay, always read the compile instructions and if not present, create an issue on the repo and the developer will probably spend a few minutes to write it out in the readme. I have random stuff lying around in my git that does not have instructions because i didnt think anyone else was going to use it

he put his config in his gitlab.

The colorization is provided by a plugin called zsh-syntax-highlighting. A lot of distributions include it in their repositories.

Thanks David and Rizky.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.

Welcome