(Constructively) What is your least favorite distro & why?
I’ve been distrohopping for a while now, and eventually I landed on Arch. Part of the reason I have stuck with it is I think I had a balanced introduction, since I was exposed to both praise and criticism. We often discuss our favorite distros, but I think it’s equally important to talk about the ones that didn’t quite hit the mark for us because it can be very helpful.
So, I’d like to ask: What is your least favorite Linux distribution and why? Please remember, this is not about bashing or belittling any specific distribution. The aim is to have a constructive discussion where we can learn about each other’s experiences.
My personal least favorite is probably Manjaro.
Consider:
- What specific features/lack thereof made it less appealing?
- Did you face any specific challenges?
- How was your experience with the community?
- If given a chance, what improvements would you suggest?
Ubuntu. They've managed the worst of both worlds: like Debian, everything is old (though admittedly not as old), but unlike Debian, everything is broken/buggy/flakey. It's the old-and-busted distro that I'm routinely told is "the only Linux we support".
If Debian is not great as a desktop distro, it’s at the very least remarkably stable as a server distro. The sentiment extends somewhat to Ubuntu LTS. It could be better, but in terms of uptime and just working I can’t fault either distro.
I just now discovered why people are hating on Ubuntu pro by receiving a note that Ubuntu will not provide security updates for some apps it came with unless you activate Pro.
I think I'm done with Ubuntu on any personal machines.
Yeah I didn’t offer much input on personal devices because I did use Ubuntu for awhile as a personal environment and it’s fine, but could use work. I think personally I like Debian better, but if I want a clean GNOME experience Fedora is probably the move.
Debian is a great desktop distro if you get your software using Flatpak, as anyone should be doing in every distro.
Whats wrong with apt?
Nothing at all, the main issue is that with graphical applications developers have an hard time to package things for all the useless distros out there and some other distros like Debian on stable will only haver older versions of software. Flatpak solves both of this issues.
Currently using Bookworm and KDE as my desktop right now. Works really well! If I need more up to date software I use Distrobox and run whatever distro’s version of software I want. I have both Debian Sid and Arch Firefox versions installed on my machine right now just to see if it worked and it’s flawless. I mostly just run apps from SID container and it exposed the app to my desktop wonderfully. Really the only way I will fly these days.
I don't have many issues on Ubuntu like you imply. It's the reason why I stick with it despite snaps.
Also, support is only provided for 18.04LTS.
I was an Ubuntu fan many moons ago. Then I fell in love with Mint when it was just all around a better version of Ubuntu.
Then I ended up with a new Windows laptop for years and forgot about Linux entirely. But this year, I've actually returned to Ubuntu. I like how it has a fresh and different look and it still performs well on my now aging laptop. Mint is always my go to recommendation to others, but I just wanted a different look than your standard Windows-like look that Cinnamon has. I was initially turned off way back when, when Ubuntu switched to Unity, but now a difference in look appeals to me. We'll see if I get annoyed with Snaps or not. So far, everything has been running smoothly.
If there was a GNOME fork of Mint, I'd likely be using that. I get that you can technically install whatever desktop environment in whatever distro you want, but for compatibility sake, it's best to roll with what your distro comes with.
Ubuntu / snaps
I'm about to piss off a lot of people.
It's Arch and Arch-derivatives. And I'm saying it as an Arch user, btw, and I actually love it.
Between the Big Three (Fedora, Debian, Arch), it is the least likely to have an official package for somewhat niche applications. If something is not available as a flatpak or appimage, I have to compile it from source or an AUR PKGBUILD, but we all know the dangers of doing that. Some software will just assume that it's running on a particular disribution, usually Ubuntu. Some software will detect the distribution and straight-up refuse to work on Arch.
That being said, it would take a lot to make me switch to a stable point-release distribution. Arch's advantages more than make up for the sub-par software support.
(actually, I lied. Fuck Canonical and *Ubuntu. And IBM.)
Name to blame, please.
Twingate Connector. The installer script only works if the OS uses either the APT or the DNF package manager, otherwise it exits. Fortunately it has many deployment methods, including Docker. I ended up using the systemd unit in a Debian container inside Proxmox.
Just use Distrobox my friend.
I use it on Fedora Atomic (Silverblue) and I install Arch- and AUR-software all the time.
In that way I can access everything I want and still enjoy the comfort of my unbreakable base.
Another plus is that if I should break my Arch container, I can just remove and reinstall it without affecting my host. The performance is about the same as with Flatpaks, so, negabile.
If you like Arch, then just use Ubuntu/ Debian/ Fedora/ whatever as container image and never stress yourself anymore with PKGBUILD
This is a balanced take in my opinion. Also an Arch user. Distrobox has helped remedy things somewhat.
Ubuntu because they've the ability to great things and end up just delivering a buggy and mangled version of Debian with proprietary crap, spyware, snaps wtv. After all we're talking about the distro that had ISOs on their download page with a broken installer multiple times.
I don't hate them, but this hits hard. They are THE most influential distro for people outside of the community. They have by far the biggest user base and community, but instead of using this to collaborate with other distributions and specially with the freedesktop folks for the improvement of the commons, they have this culture of downstream work that rarely get the effort needed to be upstreamed. It's usually "it's good enough for us, so that's where we'll leave it", and they end up with these weird solutions that only they use.
Exactly. And to make things even worse then you've people upstream (Debian) or sidestream (other distros) that eventually decide to implement whatever they did but properly and then they go there, pick it and replace their original implementation.
Anything Red Hat. Screw GPL corporatism.
Had to scroll way too far for this.
Hey, they at least prioritise contributing upstream. Canonical is much worse.
Manjaro. Its just Arch but worse
Yeah I was gonna say Manjaro too. I used it for a while while I was heading towards Arch but wasn't feeling fully confident to go full Arch as a daily driver yet, and it was nothing but trouble for me. I found that it tried to prevent me from breaking things, which is not necessarily bad, but it would also break things by itself and then this feature would prevent me from going in and fixing them.
I much prefer it when the OS just gets out of my way and lets me do what I want, even if it's dumb lol
I'm using Manjaro daily for +5 years and had one or two package conflicts, never any boot problems. I don't understand where all the Manjaro hate is coming from...
My least favourites are probably ubuntu and manjaro, not so much because of the distros themselves but the organizations behind them being a bit dodge.
I know it's probably an odd choice, but ChromeOS. It has the potential to be not just a good starting point for new Linux users but also a distro that could allow Linux to be a lot more accessible to people who aren't as technologically capable. The main problem is that, similar to android, Google prevents ChromeOS from being used as a proper Linux distro. Right now, it might be a good alternative to Windows and MacOS but as a Linux distro, it's just not worth using. Especially considering that Linux already has some options available for running android apps, such as Waydroid, that work pretty well.
I really think Google has no idea what it wants ChromeOS to be anymore, they're just kinda shoving in shoddy solutions to its problems so they can say "hey we can do that too!"
soon they're gonna introduce Steam and I look forward to that being a big shitshow lol
Have they ever? ChromeOS's original "app store" was just Chrome's extension store. It's been awhile since I've checked but Google doesn't (or at least didn't) officially support running android apps in ChromeOS Flex. Instead of focusing on getting more apps running on ChromeOS, they're actively working on Google Play Games for Windows (which also hurts android). For which I think I saw that there are games that work in Google Play Games but they don't work in ChromeOS for some reason. I'd imagine that there are a lot of other weird things but it's been a while since I've actually used it.
It's just one of those things where, ChromeOS has the potential to be a good competitor to Windows and MacOS (and maybe even a good Linux distro) but for some reason Google does nothing with it to make it worth using and actually seems to be actively harming it.
It's Pichai's handiwork from what I understand. He was in charge of it before becoming CEO according to Wikipedia.
Ubuntu: For shilling all kinds of profrietary garbage by default. If I wanted that I'd be on Windows.
Also the changes they make to GNOME make it worse, they take away what makes it good, the flow.
Exactly what I came here to say.
Prompt me for Ubuntu Pro once (in the GUI on first login)? Shame on you, but I'll move past it.
Put an ad in the terminal every time I update my system though? Straight to jail.
NIXOS. It has a very steep learning curve without acceptable documentation and once I climbed the learning curve, I realized that it was very different from the Linux that I love.
I hope you dont give up on it for too long, I think it's a great OS once you get the hang of nix. To this day, its the only OS I trust where I could install anything I want and can still rollback without worries. Also I can make sure that my installation is the same as others, which means other people can literally just copy paste my config to test.
I'm going to mention two:
Manjaro. I've attempted to use Manjaro a few different times, and outside of a VM it just didn't work properly; on my laptop it would boot loop for reasons I don't understand, it had poor hardware support and optimization on a Raspberry Pi, and it didn't last long on my desktop. It's had its chances, I'm done trying.
I really did not hitch horses with Pop!_OS, and it's almost entirely because Pop!_OS started at Gnome and kept fucking going. Just thinking about the two miserable weeks I spent trying to get Gnome to do anything is making me physically angry. Words like disobedient and belligerent come to mind when I think of what it's like to use Pop!_OS. Linux Mint is designed to feel familiar to anyone coming from Windows. Pop!_OS feels like it's designed to be the opposite of that, it deliberately doesn't work the way you think it does. YOU have to conform to IT. And I FUCKING hate it. It is never welcome on my hardware ever again.
yep. i dont see a reason to use Manjaro when EndevourOs is basically the same, but better (and a nicer color theme!)
Why does endeavor OS describe itself as a terminal-centric OS?
That alone turns me off from using it. I try to avoid the terminal at all costs.
im pretty sure you can get by pretty well without the terminal, for the most part. although, it is arch based, and its kind of the point. no distro is for everyone.
its besides the point, but why dont u like the terminal?
Because it's way harder to remember and use text commands than it is to navigate a GUI.
I also don't like taking my hand off the mouse if I can avoid it.
fair enough.
For me personally: Something like Arch. I want to spend as little time as possible on installation and configuration, and I don't want to have to read update notes or break my system. But I get that it's great for some people, and their wiki is just next level!
In general: Ubuntu. It feels like I read something about Canonical causing trouble every other week, and don't even get me started on snaps!
Completely agree on both points. Canonical always acts against the spirit of open-source whenever they get the chance.
And while Arch is great, I prefer things that work out of the box.
Ubuntu: It's not a lack of features that pushed me away; it's more about the way things are going. I am not a fan of snap packages. I have run into odd issues trying to use them. I used Ubuntu server for my Dell Poweredge and I shut it down until I can find a suitable replacement. I struggled with it respecting my DNS settings which in turn killed my reverse proxy setup.
Manjaro: While I love Arch and some of its derivatives, I can't stand by Manjaro. I thought it would have been a good OS to use since I was familiar with Arch, but it had enough dependency issues where updates broke them. Funny enough, never have I had a dependency issue with just plain old Arch.
I use Arch btw. But besides the meme on it, I legitimately eo use arch and couldn't be happier.
Same. Both started out good but kept becoming more and more... not good. If nothing else Manjaro taught me how to chroot from a live distro to fix catastrophic failures. Ubuntu really ruined my week when they decided to try becoming a smart phone with the very touch centric looking UI at the time when I didn't have time to revert or change distros, which is what finally pushed me to run servers headless and use ssh. Last I tried none of the phone like de's are particularly intuitive as touch interfaces either.
I use KDE on Arch on my Lenovo Yoga 7i, and I don't particularly use the touchscreen as much as I would have thought. Though for Waydroid it does work fairly nicely.
Someone already said Manjaro, so my second pick would be ElementaryOS. In the past they've had this weird attitude about open source things being free (I get supporting devs for projects you like of course, but I don't agree that it's "cheating" to not pay for every single piece of open source software you use), and they seem to get a lot of hype and praise for what's essentially just Ubuntu painted up to look like MacOS IMO.
I always confuse it with Sugar
I very much don't care for ElementaryOS, but I really don't think it's fair to paint it as "Ubuntu painted up to look like MacOS". It's not just GNOME with some extensions. They made a whole desktop environment and suite of applications for their distro. That's a ton of work. I think any distro that does that deserves some amount of respect.
Unpopular opinion :
So I changed and prefered manjaro with its ui for linux os, graphic card...but some thing were broken...than i settled Pop-Os for 3 years and distrohopped again for immutable os : Vanilla OS and Fedora Kinoite. :)
Another distro :
I enjoyed arch for how straight forward the install was.
Gentoo however, every time I do that from scratch it’s with X, Westland is NetworkManager that give up (my recommendation is oddlamma installer)
Yeah Arch is straight forward but is require an amazing amount of focus and concentration. :)
I should try gentoo as my next challenge, i guess i won't like it but in fact, i enjoy those challenge and trying new stuff. ^^
You need to learn how bullets work, my friend.
Bullets in markdown ?
As in what does it mean to itemize. In this case to make an unordered list.
Sorry, my english comprehension is rusty. It is an unordered list. I used it to improve readibility on phone and separate topics.
If the topic is mixed in a paragraphe i would have a harder time to quickly retrieve informations. Here you can read Arch and ubuntu and why in a single glance.
TL;DR: Ubuntu. Because I want choices.
Ubuntu. And I've felt that way for a long time, so it's not something recentish like snaps.
I don't want my distro to decide what DE and software I'm using for me. They used to have a minimal iso which gave you, as the name suggests, a very minimal install. But now their minimal image is meant for containerized stuff and if memory serves comes with some extra cruft for that purpose.
I got annoyed and I left. And every distro I've tried since, even if I didn't stick with it, I liked better.
To add some constructiveness, as that's just complaining. That can be a good thing, just depends on the user. If they want the crafted experience Ubuntu provides, then it's a good pick. It's just not for me.
Not a whole lot of experience distro-hopping here (went from Ubuntu to Endeavour and haven't really changed since) but from what I know it seems like most distros have their place. Arch is highly customisable and all rolling release distros are good for gamers and those who need the latest software. Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and other LTS distros are good for servers and newcomers (fewer big updates and therefore fewer potential crises)
For the sake of answering the question, I'd say Ubuntu is my least favourite. Its pretty bloated, and then there's the whole snap fiasco
I use Fedora as my primary desktop distro. It's a sturdy base with relatively up-to-date packages from the repos. It doesn't really push technology I consider undesirable, like Snaps. Even though I have to rely on RPMFusion for a number of proprietary parts, due to Fedora's free software stance, I don't have any particular qualms about that. I also increasingly use Flatpaks anyway.
When I used to use Reddit the /r/fedora community was helpful and welcoming.
One downside is because the kernel changes frequently, and I (sadly) own a Nvidia GPU, akmods runs very often. Another downside is sometimes that frequently changing kernel can cause issues. I think in the past year or two I've had two distinct occasions where a kernel upgrade caused my mounted shares to not mount correctly. Reporting an issue to upstream also takes quite some involvement, as I discovered when I had to create some Red Hat account to report an issue about the packaging of some software in a beta release of Fedora.
So all-in-all I would say Fedora is a strong distro. It is probably not the most beginner-friendly one, though, given how you have to dip your toes into RPMFusion and related challenges. It used to be worse, since DejaVu used to be the default font system-wide and you had to install a fonts package from COPR to make the system actually look pleasant. Since then they switched to Noto, which makes the font situation MUCH better.
On servers and VMs I use Debian because I do not have the patience to maintain a faster moving Fedora multiple times over. This is exacerbated by the awful defaults of Gnome, which I have to bend into shape with extensions. When Fedora 40 releases later this year I fully intend to reinstall from scratch since KDE Plasma 6 will be available.
edit: i misread the prompt and just talked about my favorite distro that i actively use. whoops.
My least favorite distro could be Manjaro if I actually used it, but it is Ubuntu because of how close it is to being a great distro. Snaps really soured me to that deal. Snapd and Snaps make it difficult to use in VMs, too, because now you have to over-commit resources for something that could and should be smaller and simpler. Debian stays winning, as usual.
Ubuntu when it introduced snaps, anything red hat, anything immutable
What are your reasons? This is a fairly broad amount of things to hate.
"Anything immutable" is bold. Any bad experiences, personally? I don't think they've negatively impacted the desktop Linux landscape as a whole...
I never figured out why, but I couldn't get any version of suse to work properly on my computers. I've been with Debian (sid) for about a decade now, so not the most up to date criticism here.
I don't think I've ever used Ubuntu for more than a month. I just don't like the way it looks, how locked down everything is, and how hard it is to customize.
I really hate to say this, but Lubuntu.
I enjoyed it for a solid few months (it's a lightweight
XFCELXQt version of Ubuntu, so it worked great on my very underpowered MacBook Pro from ages ago) so it was heartbreaking when one day, randomly, I couldn't get past the login screen and my TimeShift backups didn't work.If it wasn't for this out-of-nowhere critical failure, I would say I loved it.
Do you mean Lubuntu, or Xubuntu? Lubuntu uses LXQt.
Good catch, sorry. Lubuntu, I just thought it used XFCE and not LXQt
RHEL and other extremly long term support distros that have a significant user base because they hold back a lot of software features, network protocol features and moves to new dependencies that are required to work on the oldest and the newest supported distro for any given upstream software project.
Also, any time I have to learn something about a quirk in a version of software in use there it is basically wasted life time because the knowledge is already outdated by the time I obtain it.
I'd agree with Manjaro, It was my first I kinda know Linux distro after brown Ubuntu and Mint at the time it really worked well, but then package desyncing started affecting my installation followed by the first of many controversial behaviours from the team. It's one of many Linux distros that hasn't progressed much in the last few years, like elementary, and the idea it is easy to arch is false when you end up having to babysit updates because testing isn't as up to par as something like Fedora or Mint.
Garuda is a distro that has swung from a do not install to prob the best "Welcome to arch" distro for me. Their focus on tooling is getting up there with Mint & Suse BTRFS manager being a shining program of the project. More so, shows how utterly pointless Manjaro has become and badly managed the project is.
My least favorite is Linux Lite. It's supposed to be a lighter, simpler version of Ubuntu but I don't think it accomplishes this at all. It's very slow for something that's supposed to be lightweight, and still includes Snaps, which are also very much not lightweight. Plus its software center is just bad, which is not great for something that's marketed at Linux noobs. Linux Mint XFCE or SpiralLinux are better options for a Linux noob who needs a lighter distro, IMO.
An improvement I'd suggest: obviously, ditch Snaps. Another would be to take a look at what Bodhi Linux does and have the "software center" run in the browser. I don't know how good this is security-wise, but it definitely speeds things up from the UX side of things.
Yes, this was my experience as well. Linux Lite was literally heavier-weight than Mint on my machine (probably due to the snaps)
Hannah Montana Linux. Do I have to explain?
Yes.
You can't have the best of both worlds
I hate that I understood this joke. Take my angry upvote.
Is it because it came in like a wrecking ball?
Sorry, I think you meant to post this in the "best distro" thread
Any DE that looks remotely like Windows. My journey to Linux began with a seething hatred of the way Microsoft does pretty much anything. Including the Win10 UI. So when I jumped ship I wanted something completely different. I tried Gnome on a couple distros but ultimately landed on Pop!_OS and really like it!
I agree with this the most. People obsess over the start menu paradigm simply because they like it in Windows. I desire more open mindedness when it comes to looking into alternative ways to interact with your computer, so I align with GNOME.
The distro I came here to mention has been hated on already. My dislike goes to the distros that start off fine, and somehow screw it up.
Honestly, I remember using Manjaro ages ago. It had an official Openbox spin (not a community thing). I had already used Arch but I didn't even check to see what it was based on when I tried. I thought, "green is nice" and it was. It very quickly became less nice. I didn't use it after that, but I've heard plenty of hate since then.
I'm going to put another one out there just for fun.
Distrowatch's n°1... MX Linux
Nothing wrong with it, but the fact that it is number 1 (I know their ranking is just for fun and based on page hits) and doesn't deserve it is the issue. It works great, when I used it I didn't like how there was a second application for installating certain software. I think I used the Xfce setup. Again, it's fine, but if a first-time Linux desktop user sat down and installed that, it might not be the best initiation.
Popular and highly ranked distros give Desktop Linux a bad name sometimes is what I'm saying.
I don't like Ubuntu because of their forcing method to use Snap package manager.
I don't like Manjaro because of its poor dependency management. Many dependencies are not declared, so that if you update a package, it won't update the undeclared dependency and it won't work any longer. You have to update everything or nothing, and when disk space becomes low, updating everything at once is impossible.
I assume that Manj follows #Arch and doesn't improvise on sys dependencies. Definitely not poor.
Arch-archives by date, means you can build a system exactly as it was fully upgraded on a specific date, and the system works just like it used to.
Other systems that may carry 3 versions of the same library because different sw use different versions are the ones with the problem. Except for redundancy and space the system is not very coherent..
@Shamot @gianni
partial upgrades on distros without hard linked dependencies is a disaster caused by the user.
You should never have a system with less than 20% free space, but I mean system, not /home, not /var/cache/ of /var/cache/pacman,
Make partitions and mount things separately, especially /home
In a pinch you can live without man-pages remove /usr/share/{doc,man,html}/*
and on /usr/share/locale/* keep just the ones you use
When you need a man page reinstall the pkg.
@Shamot @gianni
After spending a ton of time migrating CentOS machines I have to say anything red hat related.
Also Fedora too: really polished Desktop experience, great choice of DE's, many Spins for every taste, the installer is somewhat insufferable, overall a great distro, but I just can't get myself over Red Hat (and the logo makes me feel like I'm working on Facebook OS).
I swear it is my machine or something, but despite CachyOS claiming being faster and more optimized I have yet to benchmark it as faster than the stock kernel for things I play around with. I wrote an application in rust to process a large text file and it both compiled and ran slower on CachyOS. I play around with llama.cpp and again it compiles and runs slower on CachyOS. I want to like Cachy, but right now all I can see is a bunch of window dressing to stock Arch with KDE and a couple of themes that I would rather change to default.
Also, why in the hell am I being asked to make a wifi password encryption key with the damn USB installer? CachyOS is not the only one. A lot of KDE using distros pop up the encryption window when you setup WiFi on the install image. Why? You want me to temporarily encrypt my wifi password on a temporary live image??? I just slows me down.
Anyways, I'm sure I'm crazy and clearly it is fast for somebody, but I can't even get games to benchmark higher.
Cachy is a great live usb because it has zfs.
Did you test with different kernels? Them using a custom scheduler that prioritizes desktop applications might cause background things to run slower.
Plus, the use of ananicy (cpu/ram limiter) limits stuff like that as well.
I use cachyos because they set up zram, anf uksmd by defualt. That's ram compression and deduplication, and it'a pretty powerful in my experience. If you're using cachyos, then
uksmdstatsandzramctlcan give you an idea of how much you are saving.I used the default v3 kernel that Cachy installs by default. My guess is the workloads I have are Ram I/O bound and that just doesn't mesh with the scheduler. I'm literally rooting for it to be faster because I want caring about scheduler and optimization to matter, but freaking stock Linux Mint ran the loads faster.
I don't get the hate for Manjaro, TBH. I never had any problem with it, and I used it as my main OS for a few years now.
People dislike it because:
There's no real reason to use it over Arch/EndeavourOS
Their holding back of updates for 2 weeks is stupid and can cause breakage/dependency issues when you also have stuff installed via AUR (which doesn't get held back for 2 weeks)
They hold back packages for 2 weeks, citing stability and that they can check for issues then patch before they push, but then they just... don't do that. Known issues still get pushed.
Manjaro repos have had issues with malware in the past
Manjaro has on multiple occasions had their SSL certificates expire, with their advertised "fix" being to roll your system time back. This is a job that can be automated, or at the very least should have a reminder for someone in Manjaro to sort out. The fact it happened once is an embarrassment, but the fact it's happened more times is absolutely inexcusable.
Once, I listened what some people said on the Internet, and I tried Arch. I came back to Manjaro, but I learned a lot so I'm not unhappy with the experience.
However, to say that there's no reason to use it over Arch (I don't know about Endeavour, I never actually used it) is just wrong. Maybe you don't like the differences, but they are important and useful for someone like me. When I installed Arch, I needed to tinker it for hours before having something usable. I don't want to tinker, I want my OS to work, even if it means other people made choices for me, as long as I can revert them; that's what Manjaro offers. For example, I love GNOME, but only with some plugins, like dash to dock. When I installed Arch, GNOME made an update which broke a lot of plugins, included dash to dock; while Manjaro waited for dash to dock to work to push the new GNOME. Some issues may be pushed, but a lot of others aren't. I prefer to have one big update twice a month instead of having to update and tinker again my OS possibly every day.
Manjaro is far from perfect, no distro is, but for people like me, it works very well, and better than Arch.
It's fine. People like to shit on it, usually people that have never even tried it.
I've run it for years on many systems and had no issues, which I can't say with most other distros I've tried on and off.
Pull out your pitchforks, debian.
Don't get me wrong, it's good in a VM or a server, but it's the worst Linux desktop experience I've ever had.
Apt sucks, it's the worst package manager imo (and I use Gentoo). Slow, bad a dependency resolution and apt-autoremove nuked my system both times I tried to use debian.
It's old. LTS is only good for servers, you cannot change my mind and I don't see a reason to use sid or unstable, when I can use literally why other distro with a better prepare manager.
And it just does some bizarre things, like not setting up sudo with the graphical installer...
I'm going to say Gentoo Linux. It's a good learning tool and I suppose maybe a tiny bit faster if you actually custom-compile everything for your hardware from source, but that's a crazy waste of time.
Agree. The tradeoff of building everything from source just doesn't pay off
I agree with you.
I don't hate Manjaro's developers, but they simply do not know what they are doing. They over promise and under deliver.
OpenSUSE, awfull default software selection on desktop, and pushing users hard to use an "everything configuration tool".
I tried Tumbleweed on my old main PC. When I finally got around to upgrade it, I immediately wiped it and got back to my beloved Gentoo (for which the old PC was getting a bit too slow)
Now I have Leaf on the family PC, because they pretty much only need Firefox and occasional LibreOffice and I'm lazy to try to find a different distro.
Manjaro always broke on me. I can't even trust them to keep their SSL certs up to date.
Sorry Manjaro devs, no hate, I just got burned way too many times by this arch-not-arch frankendistro.
Been on it for the last two years. Never broke. Idk what's going on
VanillaOS looked really promising but it was terribly buggy when I used it.
I think most of their efforts are focused on the upcoming Orchid system, hopefully they smooth out a lot of those things from the original.
Evil Linux Suprise™
idk why people even use it. too scary for me.
Debian.
Everything is so manual, not even system upgrades or enabling automatic updates. Like, this can be easily scripted using sed, why dont they do that?
It gets outdated very quickly and people complain that their apps are outdated, while Debian is simply shipping an extremely outdated package.
I respect what they do, and maybe for a Server it is a good OS (even though I would trust Fedora with SELinux and quick updates more).
Manjaro, because we're here on arch to use the AUR, and that breaks Manjaro basically every time.
Fedora. It doesn't really add anything and is just more stuff for people to get distracted by.
Also, red hat is responsible for shilling a lot of bullshit.
I tried Fedora aswell and couldn't get behind the package management or GNOME. I'm sure it's trivial to change the DE to something more sane (my tastes lie with Xfce and/or KDE) but I used it for a month and I just went straight back to Manjaro until I could find something better, and ultimately settled on EndeavourOS.
You could try the KDE or XFCE spins
Probably PoP_OS!. There isn't anything wrong with the os itelf, my problem is rather that its often sugested as a beginer friendly distro which in my experience it absolutely isn't. The amount of issues I encountered while trying to use it almost drove me away from Linux as a whole. (It was the first distro i tried) The time I spent trying to make everything work was comparable to Arch.
I realy like the idea and the DE they ship by default is one of the best ones I've seen (it's like GNOME but in my opinion much better) but the bugs make it a terrible suggestion for new users.
I don't really have a least favorite distribution. I mean, I guess between Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, openSUSE, Manjaro, and Gentoo, the least appealing choices to me are Manjaro and Gentoo. Manjaro is just Arch but worse, because the packages are old and likely to cause incompatibilities with AUR packages that need really up-to-date system packages, and I...don't trust the maintainers to have configured everything better than I could have myself. Just based on history.
Debian has ancient packages. That's the only reason. I'd just end up using Flatpak packages or compiling from source.
Any other distribution I could use, including Gentoo, but Arch is the sweet spot for me.
My worst experience was on Linux Void.
The iso has an encryption key problem. I tried the distro one year after, the same problem 😆 . Its the only distro that has that kind of problem. Once the problem is solved thanks to the forum, the shell didn't switch the language properly, the "-" prints a wierd character, most keys on the that row was wrong. Maybe all the praise for that distro comes from non-french speaking people, so they didn't saw the problem.
I know, the DE versions of the iso should works nice, but Void is advertised as minimalist, I want my WM. If this is that hard to switch the installation to french language, why Alpine is able to provide a correct installation experience (not easy, but correct) ?
@gianni Perhaps Fedora and parent. Just because...
RHEL - for obvious reasons