I'm working on a distro recommendation flowchart/ list for newcomers and need your input please! (Post is not only this picture btw and is mainly text)

Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de to Linux@lemmy.ml – 111 points –

We often get the same question with

"I'm new, what distro do you recommend?"

and I think we should make a list/ discussion on what is our pick for each person, and just link that post for them to give them an easy recommendation.

So I made a quick flow chart (will get polished as soon as I get your input) with my personal recommendations. It is on the bottom of the text, so you see the rest of the text here too.

I will also explain each distro in a few, short sentences and in what aspects they do differ and what makes them great.

Here are my "controversial" things I want to discuss with you first, as I don't want to spread nonsense:

Nobara

I don't know if we should recommend it as a good gaming distro. In my opinion, it's a highly insecure and experimental distro, made by one individual. I mean, sure, it gives you a slightly better experience ootb compared to vanilla Fedora, but:

  • As said, it's made by one single guy. If he decides to quit this project, many many people will just stop getting updates.
  • There are many security-things, especially SELinux, disabled.
  • It's severely outdated. Some security fixes take months until they arrive on Nobara.
  • It contains too many tweaks, especially kernel modifications and performance enhancers. Therefore, it might be less reliable.

I think, Bazzite is the way superior choice. It follows the same concept, but implements it in way better fashion:

  • Just as up-to-date as the normal Fedora, due to automatic GitHub build actions.

  • No burden of maintenence, either on the user or the dev side.

  • Fully intact security measures.

  • And much more.

Immutable distros

I'm a huge fan of them and think, that they are a perfect option for newcomers. They can't brick them, they update themselfes in the background, they take a lot of complexity compared to a traditional system, and much more. Especially uBlue and VanillaOS are already set up for you and "just work".
If you want to know more about image-based distros, I made a post about them btw :)

VanillaOS

It's the perfect counterpart for Mint imo. It follows the same principle (reliable, sane, easy to use, very noob friendly, etc.), but in a different way of achiving that.

The main problems are:

  • The team behind it isn't huge or well established yet, except for the development of Bottles.
  • They want to do many things their own way (own package manager, etc.) instead of just using established stuff.
  • The current release (V2, Orchid) is still in beta atm.

I see a huge potential in that particular distro, but don't know if I should recommend it at this point right now.

ZorinOS

I think, for people who don't like change, it's great, but it can be very outdated. What's your opinion on that distro? It looks very modern on the surface and is very noob friendly, but under the hood, very very old.

Pop!_OS

Same with that. Currently, there's only the LTS available, since System76 is currently very busy with their new DE. I don't know if we should recommend it anymore.

I made the list of recommendations relatively small on purpose, as it can be a bit overwhelming for noobs when they get a million recommendations with obscure distros.
Do you think that there are any distros missing or a bad recommendation?

114

I'm sorry if that's harsh, but my feedback would be: drop that chart!

It's daunting, it's going to freak out many newbies. Too much choice kills the choice.

You have one "default" at the bottom, Mint, so stick to that. Tell the newbies they can switch anytime to something else once they're a bit more comfortable with the Linux-world. And if I'm not mistaken, you can install and try the main DEs with Mint also. Or you can recommend Ubuntu, or any other newbie friendly distro. Just pick one and don't lose them over what they could see as an important difficult decision before they even get started.

Yeah this was my thought exactly.

Use ubuntu unless you know why you prefer something else.

Don't drop the chart! It's really helpful for some people, and it's fun, even for people who are looking to branch out rather than start fresh.
Maybe have it start simple, eg. the very top choice is "First distro?" and Y points to a giant friendly MINT endpoint that takes up half the real estate, then N points to the regular cloud of options.
But don't ignore the benefits of graphical representations. If newbies make it all the way here, they've already waded through hundreds of vast, incomprehensible walls of text expounding the virtues of sysv and runit.
I'm not saying dumb it down. There's plenty of time to dig deeper, let's ease the initial option paralysis.

A few suggestions:

  • Start with a question of the user's technical proficiency. This is probably the biggest deciding factor for picking a distro, since some lean heavily toward technically-adept audiences and some are designed for people who've never used a computer before.

  • Include questions on device type, such as desktop/laptop. Using Linux on a laptop typically requires more research.

  • Instead of asking about Windows specifically, maybe ask "which OS are you most comfortable with?" with arrows for different versions of Windows, macOS, iOS, Android (and even Linux?).

  • Make every endpoint self-contained and unambiguous, with at least one concrete recommendation. Avoid vague statements like "use what you want", and avoid referring to other branches of the flowchart. If it makes sense to converge with other branches, use a labelled arrow to point to that branch instead (this will probably require curve support in your design tool to be legible).

  • Write each box in the form of a question, and label the arrows with answers to that question. I honestly have no idea how to read the "gaming focused" box because it has two bullet points and no indication of what each arrow means. I also can't tell how to read the "general purpose/gaming" box without reading down both paths. And why does the Bazzite box point to popOS? What does this mean? Clearer labels would help.

  • The red endpoints on the left could be in a single box, since they follow the same path. Alternatively, add more questions to that path to meaningfully differentiate each option. Same with the two clusters of blue endpoints on the right.

  • Be more explicit in the terms for use cases, since "general purpose" is a bit vague (I would consider gaming to fall under "general purpose", myself). You could have paths for e.g. "web browsing and office work", "gaming", "media creation", "software development or scientific computing". Some of these paths might converge later, and that's okay.

  • Move the "This is too complicated" box up top. It's funny and probably more useful there as a kind of "TL;DR". Since it's not related to Nvidia, its current placement is odd.

Thank you for your very valuable and helpful criticism!
I like especially your "what OS are you the most comfortable with?"-question, that one is very great!

The rest is also very well thought out, I will implement it as best as I can! :)

You need to seriously up the contrast on those colors. Pink text on a slightly lighter pink text block is virtually unreadable.

i agree, my eyes are pretty good, but this is not useable. funnily enough my chosen lemmy frontend (alexandrite) would fix the colors, but its too small to read; and when you open the image in a new tab to zoom in, the colors are unuseable.

The graph was just a quick sketch in my note-taking app Logseq.

I mainly wanted to know if the flowchart made sense. When I do it properly, I'll use a different software :)

I'll let you know if it makes sense when I can read it 😁

Right now this is literally what I see:

I'm very sorry! This is just a sketch for discussion, the final version will look WAY better and be more legible :)

Ohh no apology needed. I think doing it as a flow chart is a good idea. I just included the screenshot to make sure there wasn't something going on where the colors were different for you vs everyone else.

I think beginners spend too much time and effort on the "choose a distro" quest. Choosing a DE is far more important than that.

Just that you need a Distro packaging that DE. I chose KDE and never switched, but I hopped distros as they where either too old, or broken, or unstable.

5.27 on Kinoite is pretty great though. Would recommend and I think Kubuntu etc. staying with it do the right thing.

Plasma 6 works pretty well too though, so it was many many KDE problems. But as switching DE was no option, I hopped Distros.

I can't read some text on there, you should make the image have a background since, at least my browser (firefox) seems to default to white for PNGs

People who think its too complicated won't make it to the bottom of the flow chart.

tl;Dr needs to go at the top, not the bottom. That's the point. They won't make it to the bottom.

I don’t have any specific beef with your chart but I do feel like we sometimes do a disservice to newbies by focusing on distros rather than the main desktop environments and what differentiates them. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend basically any of the Fedora spins or Debian-based distros to beginners.

The choice between KDE, Gnome, Cinnamon, etc. is much more consequential for a new user than DNF vs. Apt (especially in the Flatpak era).

while i find the colours you chose appealing, a bunch of the font colours are too close to stand out well over their backgrounds? there are a few that are genuinely hard to read-- some better contrast would help a lot also, the vertical column is a bit weird to follow? like, what's the process of going down after being asked about windows versions to get to gaming preference? it's a weird way to have the path work. even if you just put something like "i don't particularly care about windows" as the third option would help a little, i think?

sorry that's mostly about your graphic, and not the actual recommendations, lol

The graph was just a quick sketch in my note-taking app Logseq.

I mainly wanted to know if the flowchart made sense. When I do it properly, I'll use a different software :)

Debian and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed should be in there somewhere.

Do you think that those are great beginner distros?

I think TW is a very good distro, but not specifically for beginners. In your opinion, what redeeming qualities does it have for that use case, compared to other, more well known distros out there? I especially think that the rolling release is not needed for the beginning.

For Debian, same thing. I mean, especially since the newest release, it's definitely a better ootb-experience than it was before, BUT:

  • the installer (first impression) is very ugly and needlessly complicated
  • Zorin has a similar release schedule, but looks better by default (Debian is very vanilla) and has some very useful tools for beginners specifically.
  • Debian is relatively lean, which might be good for intermediate and advanced users, but for noobs, I quite like the idea of "bloat", aka a lot of pre-installed software.

Well, TBH I'm far from a distro hopper so I'll leave comparing install experiences to those who have experience with that.

That said, Debian was the first distro I've hopped to from Conectiva, back in the late nineties / early aughts. So the Debian installer asks you for a few more questions. I don't think that's a big deal, and if the newbie thinks it is, perhaps they need some help installing any distro.

The absolute stability of Debian is a great asset for a newcomer. I remember the absolute bliss and relief that everything just worked on it. Not like my previous experience with Linux and definitely not like Windows. This newfound stability emboldened me try new things - new DEs, new apps, everything! This is perfect for a newcomer. The only thing preventing me from getting more stuff was my dial up bills and my hard drive.

I also chose Debian back then because of the restrictions of the DFSG. I wanted to have a completely free system and Debian delivers an awesome free system.

Back to Tumbleweed. It's not your run of the mill rolling release. Their packages receive a lot more testing and it's considered a very stable distro for desktops. Like the other commenter said, the right integration with Btrfs snapshots is awesome. All package operations are preceded by an automatic snapshot. Recovering from a snafu is quick and painless. So, though a completely different route, it's also a great distro to try new stuff.

Tumbleweed also has the advantage of OpenSUSE's philosophy of being able to configure everything graphically. Their YaST2 control panel is a great piece of software, if a little daunting.

So, while I wouldn't say they are for everyone, I do say they are great beginner distros, for the right beginners. Debian for those that don't care for the newest version of programs and just want the system to always work (and want to get free from proprietary software as much as possible). Tumbleweed for those that do want the newest versions but want peace of mind and GUI configuration.

The Tumbleweed installer is beautiful, and straightforward. I am not sure how a newcomer would understand, or not, the partition setup if they need to keep windows and dual-boot ; if it's about to wipe the entire machine, it is one of the best, sleekest installers out there. Then package management can be a nightmare if you need to stray out of he beaten path unfortunately. Another argument for TW is the perfect integration of BTRFS, Snapper and Rollback (it is an opensuse project after all) ; I swear I'd still be on TW if it wasn't for some exotic software availabiity.

To me, debian does bring bloat: LibreOffice comes to mind. A default install will feature calendars, mails, weather whatever.

You forgot "I want those cool socks" for arch Linux :P.

I think it's also worth noting that not everyone's coming to Linux for an easy time. Or essentially sometimes people are looking for the full experience like I did when I was younger. So it might be worth including path ways for those who want to compile everything themselves or even run so minimalist they essentially just using a terminal.

I quite like your idea, but I'm very afraid that if I also include Nix, Arch, Gentoo, etc., we increase the chance that some "I just want to play some games and do my school stuff"-person decides to go the route of frustration and pain.

I think we should mainly focus on "just works" and beginner friendly choices to give a good first impression, and if that's too lame for them, they can always go the other route.
But those cases are relatively rare I think?

I don't want to make the list of choices too big, as that could be overwhelming.

What do you think of including them completely separate and as honorable mentions with a big disclaimer?

It's up to you, I haven't touched the Linux community for a long time (only came back last week to fedora) so it may just be that I'm out of touch.

When I was younger though, the biggest reason to change was because I wanted something different. If I was purely looking for playing games and homework I'd stay with Windows because it does work great for that and there would be no point to change.

So the question is, what is it that grabs me onto Linux, and part of that is implied in your your graph, but part could be seen as these aspects.

In saying that, I do get your point too, and for beginners it may be the better recommendation. In fact I may just be the outliner now that I think about it lol and maybe people don't try to set up Gentoo "just coz the community said it's hard and I took that personally" lol so an honorable mention may be better.

if I also include Nix, Arch, Gentoo, etc.,

You can add other distros and remove Fedora. I don't really understand why you would recommend it to a beginner anyway (too unstable).

Instead of "use anything" you could put in "Debian."

Is your computer weird or old (

What distros would you recommend for those use cases?

The big differences in architecture are arm, x86-64(soon to be split into v1 and v2+ if it hasn’t been already), i686 which is almost all 32 bit intel and i386(no one is actually using this!)

Not to join the chorus of model train enthusiasts itt, but Debian still maintains i686. Gentoo from source is another great option. There’s arch32 as well which I think requires that you be at least a p3.

Arm is still in a weird place and it depends on the particular implementation more often than not:

There’s Debian for arm sbcs, and there’s a different, less normal armbian that is more cheap/weird sbc oriented but also sucks in various ways. Theres also arch and gentoo for arm as well.

M1 Mac users will probably want asahi.

Actual factual i386 needers (pre-pentium) will want to run either the gentoo or bsds maintained specifically for that purpose.

My own example. I still have an ancient netbook lying around. It runs on an Intel Atom N270, which is only 32bit / i386. It came with Windows XP and I quickly switched to Mint, when it was still supporting 32bit.

I think the last Ubuntu release supporting i386 was 18.04 (around 2018) and all other distros started to drop i386 support after that.

AFAIK Debian is the only major distro still fully supporting i386. And a Debian based distro that still supports i386 is MX Linux. My ancient and crappy netbook is running MX Linux right now.

My 'weird' example. I have a Raspberry 5! It's ARM and very new. It runs its own distro, Raspberry Pi OS (Debian based), and Ubuntu does also fully support it. Right now if you try some other distro, it probably won't even boot unless you start tinkering a lot with it.

So Debian is definitively a choice for very old hardware. And the odd ARM SoC has usually at least some custom Ubuntu build that runs with it.

My prefered OS is missing. Must be a bug. Plz add NixOS kthx

Already done in the final version ;) But you won't be happy, I've put it into my "pain"-category :D

Guix > Nix, because I'm more angry about not being able to run the former than the latter.

sorry if this is harsh but this seems like kind of a waste of time when distrochooser.de exists? I think it'd make a ton of sense to link that in the sidebar but a wall of text (or a huge flow chart) is just gonna be skipped by the type of people who are asking what distro to use first instead of researching it themselves anyway. if someone's asking in a forum like Lemmy or even in discord servers, they usually just want quick answers. if we're gonna link them something instead of just saying "mint" or whatever, it should at least be something easily digestible like distrochooser.de

Slight problem with the meme vs what OP is doing: Someone evaluating choices isn't going to know what to search for from logos. They'll n only recognize Google, Apple, and Windows, with a slight possibility on Linux distros.

What do you think about something like this? It's more of a "build your own sandwich" approach.

BTW you got a bunch of weird distros no one has heard of and you don't have the champion of distros. "Do you know how to read and follow directions and do you like the stack overflow answers that are the shortest -> arch"

Not everyone has mad CPU resources (or time) to support portage tho.

You don't need to, we have official binary package hosts if you choose to use them.

Really? I might have tried before had I known that. My hardware is circa 2010 so I thought I was up the creek

I ran compiled Debian on a 600mhz pentium m. It takes much less time to build packages from source than you might think.

What do you mean with weird distros?

TuxedoOS is basically the same as Pop or Mint.
Based on Ubuntu, but without Ubuntu shit (Snaps, etc.), focused on newcomers, and with KDE.

And Fedora Atomic (Silverblue, Kinoite, Bazzite, uBlue, etc.) are the same. They're the immutable versions of Fedora. Silverblue is the Gnome variant, Kinoite the KDE one, uBlue a community project with some QoL-tweaks, and Bazzite is the gaming variant.
Nothing weird there. I basically only provided a small bunch of identical distros with other DEs.

Here's a revised flowchart for you:

  • You need professional software like MS Word, Autodesk, Adobe, NI Circuit Design for collaboration with others > Stick with windows;
  • Any other case > Install Debian + GNOME + Software as Flatpaks. You'll get a rock solid system with the latest software;

Done.

Word I think is the easiest to give up, there are other word processors that are at least as good, they're only "problem" is they aren't MS Word.

there are other word processors that are at least as good

Their only problem is that this isn't true. :P LibreOffice and friends might work for quick jobs in isolation and whatnot but once you've to collaborate with others and use advanced features like macros it's game over.

For what's worth LibreOffice can't even keep the default spacing on a bullet list consistent with what MS Word does and this is an issue if you share a document in works with someone else and then things appear in different places / pages.

That's what I meant by "They aren't MS Word." The problem is MS Word is the one everyone else has and those slight differences where "Looks fine on my machine" but looks weird when the teacher sees it.

As for "advanced features like macros" who the fuck uses macros in MS Word? I'll believe it in Excel but in Word?

LibreOffice, OnlyOffice, hell Abiword is probably good enough to get practically everyone through a bachelor's degree writing MLA formatted essays; if you need to get more serious than that you should be learning LaTEX.

3 more...

You need to limit the options.

Linux systems

  • Debian (stable, almost no bloatware, user unfriendly, apt)

  • ArchLinux (unstable, bleeding edge software, user unfriendly, pacman)

  • RHEL/ Fedora (semi-stable, newer software, relatively user friendly, dnf)

Then at max list 3 Systems that derive from each main OS.

Like

Debian: Ubuntu, Mint, PoP!OS ArchLinux: manjaro... Fedora: Nobara...

Where each should be user friendly to use. Also explain what stable means, like that unstable doesn't mean shit breaks on a regular basis but rather it can sometimes happen. Normal desktop users don't need the stability of Debian. But it is nice to have if you can live with outdated software (if it isn't already on flatpak).

As long as Mint is at the top I don't care what's underneath 😁

ZorinOS

I think, for people who don't like change, it's great, but it can be very outdated. What's your opinion on that distro? It looks very modern on the surface and is very noob friendly, but under the hood, very very old.

It's great for people who have simple requirements and older hardware. Basically for folks who just want to use a PC for basic computing tasks like Web browsing, emails, document editing, printing/scanning etc. The thing about Zorin is that it uses a traditional UI/UX which is easily to navigate for non-technical people, and it's stable enough that you almost never run into any issues (assuming you're sticking with standard distro packages and config).

My elderly parents have been using Zorin for several years now and they've never had a issue. The only time they called me was to help install their new printer last year (which was reasonably easy to install), and that was it.

So I'd recommend Zorin for anyone who has very basic computing needs, and they are not using a brand new/high-end PC.

Alright, thanks!
I see it very similar. Zorin was my first distro too, and has been the best first Linux impression I could have got at that time.

It looks very modern, and I don't think the outdated packages from the LTS are a huge concern for most (not techy) people.

What about recommending something like MX Linux if someone has an old laptop lying around and wants to revive it, and get into Linux this way?

And the question "Win 7 was the last good version" made me laugh. I remember the old times. All the viruses on XP... but it used to crash way less that it's predecessors. Vista which was super slow and annoying. Feels like they're making some progress since 7. (Okay, now they're adding more and more data collection and annoyances to it.) But if I look back to Windows 7... I'm not feeling nostalgia 😆

Good idea. I've never used it or saw it recommended that much.

Can you tell me more about it?

Do you think there's a big need for laptops with way less than 4 GB RAM? I'd say no, because there are barely any this old devices around, and most people here ask for their gaming PC or a mid range laptop.

I'm just afraid people tend to overestimate their need to choose a "lightweight" distro and then complain that it feels old and barebones and that "Linux sucks, I go back to Windows because Steam behaves weird".

Can you tell me your experience and provide more information?

Uh, my knowledge is a bit lacking. But I've been asked that question before. I don't think there are that many devices with less than 3GB around anymore. And they're probably 32bit, too. And have all kind of other issues, like modern webpages being way more demanding than in 2003. I'd skip all the details, people know what feels old and needs special treatment. If someone has an Athlon K7 with 512MB of RAM, they either need to get it recycled or a dedicated tutorial for that. Everything above should be handled by a good (32bit) distro with LXDE, LXQT, XFCE or something like that.

I think MX Linux is a good choice. I've also used a plain Debian with XFCE desktop for that. Other choices include: Bohdi Linux, Zorin OS Lite, AntiX, Linux Lite, Puppy Linux, Q4OS, LUbuntu, Linux Mint Xfce, Tiny Core, LXLE, Slax, peppermintOS, crunchbang++ and Sparky Linux.

I use Zorin OS for my laptop that's gotta be at least 15+ years but still kicking it. Outlasted the newer laptop I bought that was only 5 years old.

As someone who is only mildly into tech, Zorin is certainly familiar and I would probably recommend it to people.

I downloaded Gallium OS for my mom on her Chromebook, that's perhaps another important consideration to make...what laptop someone has.

Do you hate yourself, if yes then Solaris is the OS you've been looking for.

If a user does not like CLI or is not comfortable fixing anything, then suggest OpenSUSE. Built in snapper rollback for problems and YAST2-GTK GUI apps to configure anything, no CLI skills needed.

I know people will disagree, but the correct answer to "I'm new, what distro would you recommend" is Mint. No list required.
It's a capable, easy to start with, general purpose distro that works like Debian, one of the Linux gold standards, under the hood.

It has its flaws, but it gives you a fully functional system with everything an average user can expect from Linux, by clicking "Next" a couple of times. And it's never really the wrong option no matter what you want in a desktop system, freeing newcomers from the overwhelming options that are out there.

So use Mint until you know which distro fits you better.

Unless you want to play modern demanding games. Not so modern and not so demanding ones play fine on Mint though.

Where's the difference to other distros for this?

Newer kernels and, in case of Nvidia, newer drives. Mint, being based off of LTS, will always lag behind. For the most demanding games, the performance hit will make a difference.

That's not modern games, that's brand new hardware. It's a good suggestion, but different than what you originally said.

Sorta, but not exactly. New kernels and, more importantly, new GPU drivers bring improved performance. It might be the difference between a game being playable or not, or looking better with more graphical features turned on.

imho getting windows-based games running on linux isn't for someone 'new' to linux. they gotta get their feet wet first, and mint is an excellent choice for that... or they will be spending all their gaming time--not gaming.

Something I don't see mentioned often is what OS they are coming from. Linux mint is often recommend and assumes they are coming from Windows. MacOS users will probably feel more at home with a Gnome DE.

I think Mac users feel better with KDE. Gnome is too unique to compare it to either Windows or Mac.

If you move the dock to the top and add another dock on the bottom, you basically have the UI from MacOS.

You can replicate everything else with a few clicks too.

Very nice. I did not know that. I came over from macOS and Gnome felt very natural to use due to its similar UX approach but I understand others may differ. I may give KDE another try to test it out what's new since I used it last.

I mean, Gnome often gets compared to MacOS and KDE to Windows, but I find it to be only similar on the surface.
In reality, Gnome is totally unique in its own way and KDE has nothing to do with Windows, being more similar to Mac than anything else, especially after minimal customisation.

I really like that you want to spend time and effort into exploring this problem formulation.

At first you need to formulate the problem and the current setting and goal.

  1. A user searches a distro and has a minimum requirement demand.
  2. What are the necessary tools a distro must have in order to fit the demand of the user?
  3. The goal is to find a distro that fits the demand, at least the minimum.
  • Does the user start with a computer or will he buy a new one?
  • what are all requirements?
  • which distro fits those requirements, which doesn't, and why? Is it a out of the box problem or is just a package missing?

it's very difficult

Imo, First requirement should be that it has to automatically boot, always. If a distro is not able to ensure this without major user input it's not a state of the art distro. Any system has to boot always. You shall never be left with a broken system.

You have to provide info why the distro of choice is the best distro for said use case. Otherwise the reader will just pass if he doesn't like the distro. It has to be convincing

Not to discourage, love the idea, but it can be hard to choose an OS based on yes/no questions. Debian an Ubuntu have a lot of similarities for instance and maybe there are things you really like about Ubuntu (e.g. newer packages) and also things you hate about it (e.g. proprietary packaging with Snap).

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Personally, even this rough sketch helped me frame other things I've heard about a lot better. A quick rundown of the most important points of each distro is exactly what I need to bridge the gap between "just use Mint/Debian/Pop_OS!" and the more involved concepts of Atomic, security focused, hardware support, philosophy, and what not.

This isn't so much about finding the right choice as it is about discarding the wrong ones. I can go through the tree and see what's likely to spend resources on something I don't care about, what might be too advanced for me, and what sounds interesting. Really understanding three choices is far simpler than being swamped with 30+.

Okay, nice so far

  • TuxedoOS has nvidia drivers
  • Budgie, XFCE, Mate, LxQt in the "old but traditional" desktops; all will switch to wayland and no longer really fit

I would also add the category

  • "I want a stable experience without many changes and accept old bugs that are not fixed for an eternity" (Debian stable, Almalinux, Rockylinux, Opensuse Leap, *Ubuntu LTS & derivatives)
  • "I want new updates with the latest and greatest but breakages" (Arch, Gentoo, Fedora rawhide, opensuse tumbleweed, Debian testing?)
  • "I want something in between" (Fedora, Opensuse slowroll, Ubuntu)

I would stick to basic recommendations and go from easiest to more and more advanced distribution, to avoid scaring beginners :

  • graphical installation + easy to setup (nvidia + codec )+stable : basically Ubuntu based distribution (but not Ubuntu, some snaps, i.e. steams, are more bugged than the flatpak and the .deb . I wouldn't recommand a distribution that force bugged app for beginners ) + others

  • graphical installation : user will have to install nvidia drivers, codec or other useful things manually. The distribution can have several update a week with more risk to break, but is still considered solid and has a preconfigured way to roll back (snapshot) or more lightweigth and stable depending of the choice : fedora, opensuse tumbleweed, Debian+ others...

  • do it yourself distributions : for advanced users or motivated people that want to learn it the hard way. Distributions are up to date and have either a risk to break or user has to manually configure about everything (or both ) : arch, void Linux, gentoo, ...

"Gaming" distributions could be placed between the 2 first categories as they are a kind of out of the box distribution but more up to date than the stable distributions.

Low ram/CPU consumption could be a side option at every step (easy, mid, hard)

I didn't tried immutable distributions in a while, so I don't know how to place them. My experience one year ago (kinoite, silver blue, blend os), was that it was more complicated than a regular distribution to do what I needed, but it was 1 year ago, so I wouldn't know where to place it.

I'm quite a beginner in Linux, I love to test distributions to see how far I can go without using the terminal, and without breaking the distribution. So my vision can be quite narrow comparing to more experienced users.

Are you kidding me with the pink font on pink boxes? Or is that a sync glitch? Cant read most of the text

It's a glitch, and also outdated.
It was just a sketch, and the "real" post is out now :)

Kubuntu. Unless you come from osx(then gnome), or have a really old computer.

Canonical bad etc. but IMHO any distro recommendation chart for new users that lacks Ubuntu LTS is not credible. Downvote away.

I feel like that might be Debian stable now? With Ubuntu adopting snaps and Debian containing firmware in the installation iso.

Yeah Debian 12 made Ubuntu LTS obsolete.

Sleeping on it: major version upgrades. In Debian there's no automatic way to do it as far as I know?
For people with little technical experience, this could be a substantial hurdle or even problem.

Apt-get dist-upgrade is a Debian invention. From before Ubuntu existed.

But it doesn't do any custom upgrade steps? For a correct upgrade, you need to follow Debian's manual. Otherwise you will break things afaik

If you're asserting dist-upgrades are not supposed to be unattended, you're right. By design. If it's something else, then I don't follow.

Could be, I haven't tested it in a while on a desktop or a laptop. Snaps are fine for new users. In fact they are a net benefit. I'm speaking from point of view of availability of software and function, not technology or ideology.

I am strictly speaking about user experience here. If something goes wrong with snaps, solutions are harder to find than traditional ways of installing software. I don't think most users care about the underlying systems otherwise.

Ubuntu and KDE was a horrible experience for me. They theme GNOME like hell which is very controversial too. Their snaps are basically a one-company-project nobody really likes.

The default desktop experience has been pretty consistent since 18.04, 6 years ago. Controversial or not, it worked well in 2018 and it works well today. We've been using it on hundreds of our dev workstations since 2017. Most folks came from Windows.