As I am teaching myself right now maintainable selfhost setups using popular apps (admittedly with Kubernetes vs something minimal in functionality like Docker Desktop), there is a lot of complexity involved in getting these services both functional and maintainable while also having to consider the security implications of various setups.

While I agree the concept of self-host is a good thing to advocate, I think the complexity and difficulty involved not just to do it, but to do it right is going to be a straight cliff of a learning curve for those not already technically inclined in databases, networking, and filesystems/block storage.

Honestly, taking the burden of being IT for a reasonable subscription cost for your efforts is a better way to go, especially if the setup allows for expanding your offerings to other members in a localized community.

Alongside many others, I agree that using QEMU through GUI frontends like virt-manager or GNOME Boxes, or even server-focused solutions like Cockpit+VM plugin or Proxmox layered on top of your installation.

I just want to note a decent point against other solutions like VirtualBox or the VMWare products that work on Linux: these solutions that don’t rely on QEMU almost certainly need the user to install out-of-tree kernel modules (that in some cases may also be proprietary). QEMU and its frontends don’t need out-of-tree modules in a majority of distros and can work out of the box with all features (given BIOS configuration of the host and hardware supports them).

I started dual booting Linux after an upgrade to an insider preview of Windows 10 soft-bricked my Windows 7 install. I later stopped booting into Windows and eventually reclaimed the partitions to extend whatever distro was installed at that point when the actual release of Windows 10 decided to attempt automatically upgrading my Windows 7 system, soft-bricking it a second time. 2016 onwards, I haven’t used Windows on my systems outside of occasionally booting LTSC in a VM.

Running the same memory constraints on a 1.18 vanilla instance, most of the stack memory allocation largely comes from ramping the render distance from 12 chunks to 32 chunks. The game only uses ~0.7 GiB memory non-heap at a sane render distance in vanilla whereas ~2.0 GiB at 32 chunks. I did forget the the render distance no longer caps out in vanilla at 16 chunks. Far render distances like 32 chunks will naturally balloon the stack memory size.

For clarification, this is Vanilla, a performance mod Fabric pack, a Fabric content modpack, Forge modpack, etc. that you are launching? If it’s the modpack that you describe needing 8gb of heap memory allocated, I wouldn’t be surprised the java stack memory taking ~2.7 GiB. If it’s plain vanilla, that memory usage does seem excessive.

Depending on version and if modded with content mods, you can easily expect Minecraft to utilize a significant portion memory more than what you give for its heap. Java processes have a statically / dynamically (with bounds) allocated heap from system memory as well as memory used in the stack of the process. Additionally Minecraft might show using more memory in some process monitors due to any external shared libraries being utilized by the application.

My recommendation: don’t allocate more memory to the game than you need to run it without noticeable stutters from garbage collection. If you are running modded Minecraft, one or more mods might be causing stack-related memory leaks (or just being large and complex enough to genuinely require large amounts of memory. We might be able to get a better picture if you shared your launch arguments, game version, total system memory, memory used by the game in the process monitor you are using (and modlist if applicable).

In general, it’s also a good idea to setup and enable ZRAM and disable Swap if in use.

The VRR problems are specifically related to either monitors not supporting Freesync over HDMI or the user running a monitor expecting HDMI VRR to work on HDMI 2.1 specs (>4k@60hz or equivalent bandwidth negotiation requirements). I would concur a small subset of users is correct for the use-cases where this becomes a problem.

Largely things look good. It might be a good idea looking for a motherboard that has Intel ethernet rather Realtek. I’m also a bit curious if the barebones VRM design on the board is adequate as well.

Generally, yes. It’s not nearly as bad as say 2015 but NVidia has a long standing history of being difficult to deal with, and users having to make constant compromises. For instance, NVidia hasn’t had properly working Wayland support on most environments until recently due to the awful flickering that many users experienced. Things like power saving, dual GPU handoff, general OpenGL performance, frame stability and tearing (X.Org), etc. have been either historical and/or current pain points for using NVidia GPUs vs AMD or Intel GPUs.

It doesn’t currently allow for concurrent execution of EXE files, but that’s a good idea. I’ll see about implementing it.

For many with unstable ISP connections, http downloads can get corrupted. Torrents are superior in this regard as the file gets split into blocks that each get checksummed for integrity after completion. This helps to ensure that the large iso is actually complete and won’t just be garbage on an attempted install. Even if you checksum the iso from http download, you have to pull the entire thing again if it is damaged whereas the torrent would just repull the damaged blocks automatically.

2-2-1 still insinuates having a remote backup. I don’t see how this particular threat destroys a 2-2-1 setup.

I’d imagine mpd with one of many frontends would work well enough. You’d just need to use a dummy music library directory with symlinks to your four music storages for mpd to pick up and catalog everything.

On my Fedora KDE install on 40, hibernate is now an available power option. The install has been in upgrade cycles since 35 at this point. I would imagine that barring different DEs showing different power options being a possibility, it is more on detecting hardware compatibility for functional hibernation.

Tiny 11 comes in two variants:

Tiny11 Core is not suitable for use on physical hardware as it outright disables updates. It’s best used for short-term VM instances.

Tiny11 also has problems with updates. The advantages gained through Tiny11 will erode with applying Windows updates. The installer is more tolerable than Windows 11 by not forcing an online account (but still needing to touch telemetry settings). Components like Edge and One drive will inevitably rebuild themselves back in with cumulative updates. If this is something that coerces you to not update your system, don’t subject yourself to using Tiny11. Additionally Tiny11 fails to apply some cumulative updates out of the box, which could be a further security risk.

I recently tested the main Tiny11 in a VM based on a different user recommending it in a now deleted thread. I was skeptical knowing the history of Tiny10 onward that 11 would actually be able to update properly, and NY findings backed up my initial skepticism of functional updates.

The A485 is actually such a terrible laptop. I would never reccomend such garbage to anyone considering mine almost never worked properly. I had in three years have six main board replacements for various hardware faults. Not a single of the boards has been free from severe hardware faults.

I have been utilizing BunkerWeb for some of my selfhost sites since it was bunkerized-nginx. It is indeed powerful and flexible, allowing multi-site proxying, hosting while allowing semi-flexible per-site security tweaks (some security options are forcibly global still, a limitation).

I use it on podman myself, and while it is generally great for having OWasp CRS, general traffic filtering targets and more built on top of nginx in a Docker container, the way Bunkerweb needs to be run hasn’t really remained stable between versions. Throughout several version upgrades, there have been be severe breaking changes that will require reading the setup documentation again to get the new version functional.

I just did some testing in the past hour or so and did a portable install from scratch using the Fedora Workstation 39 iso. I’m not exactly sure what your hardware detection issue would have been, but I can say that Anaconda could detect both a USB flash drive and an external hard drive I had plugged in.

Going with the USB flash drive, I did skip using the automatic partitioning and went for using blivet to do my work. I did format the drive beforehand as I have always had issues with that drive properly accepting various partitioning commands (the installer no exception as tested). I did reserve a partition for a shared storage filesystem, but didn’t actually give it a filesystem here.

In blivet, here is a sample of the kind of partition schema I was talking about (something that might be helpful to OP or anyone else that wants to try this setup):

I was able to then complete the install as normal and boot into the finished USB drive. I noted a small non-fatal complaint from grub on boot, but I imagine this is fixed with updating the system. All systemd units boot without failure and I am able to get the system working with minimal issue. The only real issue I could note is that the installation is very sluggish (due to it being on a flash drive rather than an external ssd or some other more suitable media). After booting, I then opened Disks and added the missing exfat (or NTFS) filesystem I reserved a partition for. The reason I didn’t do this in blivet during install is because the option doesn’t actually exist to make an exfat fs in the tool.

Hopefully, this comment is helpful toward getting such a setup working.

EDIT:

Something I did notice with GRUB on Fedora Workstation 39 is that by default, the menu will not show unless pressing escape on boot. There is a useful AskUbuntu post that explains in detail how to access the grub menu and how to change it to behave in a better fashion for a multiboot system.

Ah, that would put a bit of complication into things. If you want to actually accomplish this though, you should largely start with the same steps as a standard system install, using a second USB flash drive to write the distro onto the external SSD, leaving enough space to build the rest of the partitions you need. If you intend to make a Windows-shared partition (exfat, fat32, or NTFS), it is probably best to put that partition either first or just behind the EFI partition so that Windows systems won’t have a hard time finding it. Exfat or NTFS would be a better choice for this type of partition.

I would still generally recommend keeping the live distros on a separate bootable drive, but you can size and reserve dummy partitions after the rest of your normal dual-boot installs and shared data partitions for live installers to overwrite. There is likely going to be some experimentation with getting the OS bootloader (such as on GRUB provided by Fedora in this case) to pick them up and add them as boot entries. You should (depending on the live image) be able to dd write them to the ending partitions reserved for the image for as long as the partition is sized equal or larger than the ISO image’s size (it’s best to give at least a few blocks of oversize on the partition when writing ISO’s directly).

Edit: In a proper Fedora install, you should almost never need to disable selinux or set it to permissive unless you know why you don’t want it.

For the longest time reading this post, I didn’t catch that you were setting up a simple dual boot for an internal SSD and thought with using tools like Ventoy you were making a multiboot portable install.

You are obscenely overcomplicating this. Your current approach is almost completely wrong to getting a functional multiboot system that passes secure boot and everything else.

Quite literally, bootstrapping from windows can use Rufus or ventoy on a USB stick to dump the ISOs on. Then boot into bios from the USB EFI entry. From there, simply install Fedora (no VM necessary). You’ll get Fedora installed in a GPT/EFI configuration (if you formatted your drive for install). If doing manual partitioning to leave space or do other configurations, format the drive to GPT. If multibooting, you may want to expand your EFI partition beyond 512MiB for multiple distros.

For other Linux OS to install alongside, you can then install them in the free space. Another comment mentioned to not install a bootloader on the secondary OS(es), which is generally a good idea.

For Tails, it is not meant to be installed on an SSD. It is best to use it on a flash drive.

Overall, a majority of your issues stem from the following:

• trying to use live distro images as an actual OS install
• using Ventoy as your bootloader
• using legacy MBR partition tables instead of GPT without expressed need for them
• Using virtualbox in general to provision bare metal hardware (changes need to be made in your VM software of choice to get EFI booting to work)

I’d argue your conclusion of people not switching to Linux because you found it too hard is almost entirely not because of any issue on Linux, but the factors you wedged yourself into on a modern x86 PC due to your methods in accomplishing your goal.