If you ain’t scared of the terminal and a little coding, you can use the format FireFox exports to. It’s a single html file with everything stored in one big <DL> with folders stored as headers and a sublist. All the urls and metadata are stored in the tags.

It should be relatively easy to make shell script that takes some arguments—e.g. action (add or remove), type (folder or link), url, and title—and modifies the file appropriately, programmatically taking metadata like creation/modify time (firefox stores them in unix time) from the system and favico from the website. That way it will work with any firefox anywhere.

If you want something more full featured, buku looks promising, although I haven’t tried it. For a gui keditbookmarks—which is a standalone, despite being part of KDE—looks like a simple interface that can import/export in firefox, opera, netscape, or Internet Explorer formats, as well as export to a “printable html file” (which I assume meets your definition of “readable”) and should open links in the system’s default browser.

I choose to use terminal because I can update my software without requiring a restart (I used Debian btw); for some reason, GNOME’s Software app cannot do this without restarting. I also prefer terminal-based text-editing for coding and scripting.

Depending on use-case, you can absolutely just use the distro without ever touching the terminal. It requires extra work to sift through all the online advice and docs that center around CLI commands though. The Average Windows User won’t be digging that deep in their system to customize the shit out of it like an Arch user, so they won’t need to touch the stuff that can only be accessed via command line. The Above Average Windows User will already be comfortable with the command prompt anyway.

Which distribution is the most user-friendly while still updated packages?

All of them? Why would a distro choose to be hostile to its users? (/s)

I assume you mean “beginner friendly”? In that case, I would stick to Debian: more stability than windows, harder to break than Arch, and lighter-weight than Fedora.

Those are the only 3 I’ve daily driven in the past couple of years, and that’s my takeaways. I can’t give informed input on any of the popular derivatives, except Ubuntu which I did use for awhile (back in 2014-2016): it was more prone to breaking shit than Debian, less beginner-friendly too (fuck Snaps, and fuck your Pro subscription data-harvesting up-selling bullshit).

Since you’re installing Debian, presumably you’ve done the required reading according to their wiki, and seen the DontBreakDebian page.

If not, here’s the portion I’m thinking of (emphasis mine)

Don’t make a FrankenDebian

Debian Stable should not be combined with other releases carelessly. If you’re trying to install software that isn’t available in the current Debian Stable release, it’s not a good idea to add repositories for other Debian releases.

First of all, apt-get upgrade default behavior is to upgrade any installed package to the highest available version. If, for example, you configure the forky archive on a trixie system, APT will try to upgrade almost all packages to forky.

This can be mitigated by configuring apt pinning to give priority to packages from trixie.

However, even installing few packages from a “future” release can be risky. The problems might not happen right away, but the next time you install updates.

The reason things can break is because the software packaged for one Debian release is built to be compatible with the rest of the software for that release. For example, installing packages from forky on a trixie system could also install newer versions of core libraries including libc6. This results in a system that is not testing or stable but a broken mix of the two.

Repositories that can create a FrankenDebian if used with Debian Stable:

• Debian testing release (currently forky)
• Debian unstable release (also known as sid)
• Ubuntu, Mint or other derivative repositories are not compatible with Debian!
• **Ubuntu PPAs and other repositories created to distribute single applications **

Some third-party repositories might appear safe to use as they contain only packages that have no equivalent in Debian. However, there are no guarantees that any repository will not add more packages in future, leading to breakage.

Finally, packages in official Debian releases have gone through extensive testing, often for months, and only fit packages are allowed in a release. On the other hand, packages from external sources might alter files belonging to other packages, configure the system in unexpected ways, introduce vulnerabilities, cause licensing issues.

Once packages from unofficial sources are introduced in a system it can become difficult to pinpoint the cause of breakage especially if it happens after months.

I would personally add that this isn’t a case of “if”, but rather “when”. Even if it works at the beginning, all it takes is Mint deciding they want to use a newer library when they update the package you’re using, and suddenly your system won’t boot and there’s no clear, easy solution other than “restore from backup.”

Even if you know what you’re doing, I would limit tinkering to binaries managed in the $HOME/.local/bin (and any applications that work as package management for that, like cargo, pip or homebrew) or packages that you completely control yourself (such as through git pulls and compiling yourself).

“Stick to the official repo” is generally the advice I would give for any distro, with the exception of DIY OSes that are intended to be patchwork, like gentoo or Arch.

THAT BEING SAID: I’m not saying “don’t install without a DE and piece your desired DE together from their parts.” Debian has a lot of DEs, window managers, and their individual parts all in the official repos; a lot of the difference you see between the versions Debian offers and the versions Mint or Ubuntu offer are basically just theming that you can do yourself without altering the system packages.

If you absolutely must install a 3rd party repo, just understand you are sacrificing Debian’s selling point of stability, and waiving your rights to hold the Debian Maintainers responsible; and when your system breaks (which might not be for many years), it will be entirely your own fault.

Since you can run the apps (glitchy as they may be), nothing is wrong with the read perms on the drive. Maybe write perms or exec perms? But ntfs perms don’t map neatly onto POSIX perms, so it’s hard to say. Maybe try setting the gid to the vboxuser group id and see if that helps?

You might also check out the mount manpage and look at the section about “Generic Mount Options”; this is the more in-depth explanation of the “options” column in fstab, and the defaults option (which depends on the distro) can hide stuff like nouser, which prevents users from mounting the drive.

Finally, look into ACLs and how to manage those for interoperability across Windows and POSIX systems.

Best case scenario, fixing it so your user has all access to the drive with the user,exec options fixes your issues. Otherwise, you’ve just gotta do the learning about ACLs and POSIX perms