Linux

I'm not super familiar with ZFS so I can't elaborate much on those bits, but hardlinks are just pointers to the same inode number (which is a filesystem's internal identifier for every file). The concept of a hardlink is a file-level concept basically. Commands like lsblk, df etc work on a filesystem level - they don't know or care about the individual files/links etc, instead, they work based off the metadata reported directly by the filesystem. So hardlinks or not, it makes no difference to them.

Now this is contrary to how tools like du, ncdu etc work - they work by traversing thru the directories and adding up the actual sizes of the files. du in particular is clever about it - if one or more hardlinks to a file exists in the same folder, then it's smart enough to count it only once. Other file-level programs may or may not take this into account, so you'll have to verify their behavior.

As for move operations, it depends largely on whether the move is within the same filesystem or across filesystems, and the tools or commands used to perform the move.

When a file or directory is moved within the same filesystem, it generally doesn't affect hardlinks in a significant way. The inode remains the same, as do the data blocks on the disk. Only the directory entries pointing to the inode are updated. This means if you move a file that has hardlinks pointing to it within the same filesystem, all the links still point to the same inode, and hence, to the same content. The move operation does not affect the integrity or the accessibility of the hardlinks.

Moving files or directories across different filesystems (including external storage) behaves differently, because each filesystem has its own set of inodes.

• The move operation in this scenario is effectively a copy followed by a delete. The file is copied to the target filesystem, which assigns it a new inode, and then the original file is deleted from the source filesystem.

• If the file had hardlinks within the original filesystem, these links are not copied to the new filesystem. Instead, they remain as separate entities pointing to the now-deleted file's original content (until it's actually deleted). This means that after the move, the hardlinks in the original filesystem still point to the content that was there before the move, but there's no link between these and the newly copied file in the new filesystem.

I believe hardlinks shouldn't affect zfs migrations as well, since it should preserve the inode and object ID information, as per my understanding.

I don't think that's possible.

You can do pretty much the same things on either. The difference is one is a rolling release with fresh fairly untested packages and the other is a fixed stable system with no major changes happening.

hyprland

A wayland compositor and tiling window manager. The lead developer of the project is a Polish transphobic workaholic.

why do ppl use the CLI for things like making and moving files? i find the GUI easier and faster as well as less prone to mistakes

If you understand how shell scripting works you can easily automate menial tasks. CLI is also an interface shared by all operating systems so if you know how to work around in a shell you're not bound to any particular workflow/desktop GUI. Keep using GUIs though, they exist for a reason.

what is wayland and xorg, and why does everyone argue about them

Both are display protocols that are in charge of displaying graphics to your screen. Xorg is over 30 years old while wayland is only about 15 years old. The polemic about xorg was that the codebase was unmanageable and the design architecture of the program was inherently flawed (example: screenlocker getting access to your entire screen including apps and desktop, making writing malware for x11 a 3 line python script). X11 was designed during a time when people were using actual real life terminals and mainframes. Wayland is much more modern and akin to how modern graphics APIs are handled (for the most part)

Wayland at its core has and always will be design by committee so a lot of the arguing is necessary (though sometimes long-winded) to make sure to not repeat xorg's mistakes. Protocols take months if not years to be merged into wayland and those protocols have to be implemented by wayland compositors themselves rather than sharing 1 program altogether like with xorg.

Watch this video for more information, explains it much better and is from an actual wayland board member.

Why YOU should write a Wayland compositor – Victoria Brekenfeld – HiP22 Berlin