I am trying to use my old laptops for self-hosting. One has a 6th gen Intel Core i3 (4GB ram), the other has an 11th gen Intel Core i5 (8GB ram). I have previously tried both ubuntu server and desktop but couldn’t get it to work well. For the former I found it difficult to remote ssh and the latter I had difficulty installing Docker containers. (I’m not very good with the command line)

I would like to find an OS that is easier to setup with less of a neccesity for the command line (I would still like to learn how to use it though, I don’t want to get rid of it entirely!). I’ve heard of CasaOS, is that a good option? It seems quite easy to use. What about other alternatives?

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    126·
    17 hours ago

    Keep in mind the reason why people generally dont run desktop environments on a server is because unessential software uses more resources and increases the chance of a system crash. I would highly reccomend learning how to use a terminal and installing fish (shell) is a great place to start.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1130·
      16 hours ago

      User makes specific request

      Top comment is ‘Nah you don’t want that, just learn terminal yo’

      Fuck every member of the linux community

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        193·
        16 hours ago

        What? Am I supposed to lie? For advanced tasks such as running server grade software you need to use a terminal, this is the case for every single operating system. FreeBSD, MacOS, and yes even Windows require knowledge of the terminal for advanced tasks such as running server grade software.

      • David From Space@orbiting.observerEnglish
        3·
        11 hours ago

        This is Lemmy, not the other place. Please be kinder. No need to abuse people trying to help, especially when OP did mention they wouldn’t mind learning if its easy enough.

      • Sebbe@lemmy.sebbem.seEnglish
        123·
        16 hours ago

        User asks specifically how to do terminal based things without using the terminal. Fuck you, specifically.

          • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            13 hours ago

            There’s a reason that’s not very popular outside of corporate intranets.

            • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
              29·
              14 hours ago

              No, the entire discussion is about a user that doesn’t want to deal with CLI to self host

              There’s really no meaningful difference between linux desktop and server distros like there is in windows, people just run them without the desktop environment to reduce overhead.

              • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                1·
                10 hours ago

                Yeah but all self hosting software is TUI, I mean sure you can use a GUI but at the end of the day you’ll need to use a terminal emulator to acturally run the software so there isnt much point in the overhead

          • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
            4·
            13 hours ago

            We’re talking about servers here. Linux is the market leader in server software by an absolutely enormous margin.

            • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              4 hours ago

              It staggers me how dense you are, but the insight into how fanatics lose track of the plot is worth the pain of admission

              The thread is about self-hosting with as little CLI as possible, and the only functioning difference between most ‘server’ and ‘desktop’ linux distros is just a prepackaged gui

              • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
                1·
                2 hours ago

                I mean if that’s what you think, I can tell you don’t work in the industry. Desktop editions generally have more than just a “prepackaged GUI” on top of a server edition.

                • Server editions generally have text based installers. This might not seem like a big deal, until you’re installing on a system that doesn’t have any graphics, just a serial console.
                • They almost always have an easy way to do headless and network installations.
                • They sometimes have additional security modules, like SELinux, different kernel boot parameters, or even different kernel versions. (Although this is less common nowadays.)
                • They’re also missing an audio server (different than a GUI), and usually a print server.
                • They can often be GBs lighter, which makes a difference when you’re installing on virtual machines with limited disk space.
                • They sometimes use different file systems by default (like Fedora used to).
                • They might create different swap setups.
                • They usually have very different network defaults. Like, desktop editions usually have a firewall, whereas server editions usually don’t (or it’s not enabled by default).
                • Server editions often include terminal tools that desktop editions don’t.
                • They’ll sometimes have a different network manager (Ubuntu Server uses systemd-networkd while Ubuntu Desktop uses Network-Manager).
                • Server editions almost never come with userland file mounting tools like gvfs.
                • Sometimes (like in Fedora) a server edition will come with remote management solutions like Cockpit.
                • The home directory skeletons will be vastly different on a server vs a desktop.

                That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are plenty more I could find.

                Now, since you seem like you might accuse me of it, note that I did not say that a server edition and a desktop edition can’t be swapped back and forth by installing and removing packages and changing a bunch of config. They can. But, it’s not “just” some GUI stuff that makes a desktop edition, and it’s not “just” the lack of a GUI that makes a server edition. They are usually quite different.

                Source: I’ve been a professional Linux server administrator for 16 years. But don’t take my word for it. Try it yourself. Install Ubuntu server, then run sudo apt install ubuntu-desktop and see if it’s exactly the same as installing Ubuntu Desktop.

                • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 hours ago

                  Son I’ve been an IT professional since before the internet had pictures and have spun up more linux hosts than you’ve had fap sessions.

                  and see if it’s exactly the same as installing Ubuntu Desktop.

                  There is no way to convert a Windows Server into a desktop compatible device without recompiling significant portions of the source code, and at that point all you are doing is recapitulating Windows Desktop

                  There are several ways, though not trivial, to do that with linux, in both directions. I’ve literally done it.

                  It doesn’t matter what extra packages get bundled with the distro that at a fundamental level all versions of linux are the same thing under the hood

                  • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
                    1·
                    2 hours ago

                    So yeah, even though I specifically said you’d probably accuse me of saying something and specifically told you I wasn’t saying that, you still accused me of it. You should work on your reading comprehension.

                    Now, you said that a desktop edition is virtually the same as a server edition + a prepackaged GUI. I gave you plenty of reasons they’re not.

                    As an IT professional, you absolutely should know this. So far, the only skill you’ve shown any true mastery of is misguided condescension. So instead of arguing against a point I didn’t make, if you’d like to argue against my actual point, feel free. Otherwise, maybe realize you’re not as educated as you thought, and learn.